Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the cage of the following Bills, brought from the Lords and referred on the First Beading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been Complied with, namely:
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Bill [Lords].
Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Bill [Lords].

Bills to be read a Second time To-morrow.

IMPERIAL INSTITUTE BILL [Lords] (Standing Orders applicable thereto not complied with).

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords and referred pursuant to the Order of the House of the 17th day of July, the Standing Orders, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Imperial Institute Bill [Lords],

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Sutton Harbour Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; an Amendment made.

Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

London, Midland, and Scottish Railway (Dock Charges, Scotland) Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the third time, and passed.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Carmarthen (Carmarthen Division), in the room of the right hon. Sir ELLIS JONES ELLIS GRIFFITH, Baronet, K.C. (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Phillipps.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

OFFICERS' FRIENDS' BRANCH (SOUTH-WESTERN REGION).

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD - BURY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he can state what is the drop in the monthly return of the work done by the officers' friends' branch in the south-western region since the establishment of the new regime on the dismissal of the former qualified senior officers?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): Since the change in the personnel of the officers' friend in the south-western region on the 1st June, the volume of work has been slightly less than the average for the preceding six months. I am satisfied that the work is being performed with promptitude and efficiency. The change in personnel was the replacement of an officer who has large private means by an officer who has not.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does the drop in the amount of work mean that these redundant officers who replaced well-qualified officers do not know their work as well as the original officers?

Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir. I do not think there is any foundation for that suggestion. The information I have is that the work is being performed just as efficiently.

APPEALS.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 6.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware that the Tottenham and Edmonton Local War Pensions Committee have had a number of cases brought to their notice in which part of the appellant's medical history, although in the possession of the area officers, has been withheld from the appellant and his representative; and, in view of the suspicions aroused upon this matter, whether he will receive a email deputation from this Committee in order that the matter may be satisfactorily cleared up?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am aware, from statements in the local Press, that complaint in regard to the matter referred to has been made in two cases. I have asked for particulars of these cases, which will be investigated. If necessary, I shall be pleased to receive a deputation.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: 9.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will consider the desirability of notifying the pensioner of His right to appeal, shortly before the expiration of such right, in order to obviate the waste of both time and money caused by bringing the appellant to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal only to be told that the Court has no power to hear the case owing to the fact that the Ministry had posted a notice to the appellant some 12 months or mow previously?

Mr. ROBERTS: A man in respect of whom a final award is made is expressly advised of his right of appeal at the time that the award is notified to him. It is my desire to secure that every man who has the right of appeal should be assisted to exercise it if he desires to do so. But the particular suggestion made by the hon. Member has already been put before the Ministry by the British Legion, and, after most careful consideration, was found to be impracticable.

Mr. M. WILSON: 10.
asked the Minister of Pensions what number of cases have been sent to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in which the Ministry objected to their being heard on account of their being out of time, and the number of those cases in which the Ministry have sustained their objection?

Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that the figures asked for are not available, but if the
hon. Member will put down a question again in a week's time, I hope to be able to furnish some information on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. BAKER: 5.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that a higher clerical officer in his Department has held an acting appointment as staff officer for about two years, and has had two increments in that grade; that this officer's work and conduct were certified as satisfactory in two successive years in order that the increments could be granted; that this officer has now been superseded by a junior officer; that there are other senior officers, some of whom have at various times performed staff officer's work, who have now been passed over in favour of this junior officer; whether he is aware that this appointment was due to be made in 1922; and, if so, will he state the reason of the delay and give personal consideration to the claims of his senior staff?

Mr. ROBERTS: The facts as stated are generally correct. The filling of the vacancy in question was delayed in order that there might be an opportunity of testing the suitability for promotion of several higher clerical officers. The final selection was made after the fullest possible consideration of the claims of all concerned, including those of the acting staff officer, who is not the senior member of the higher clerical class.

Major WHELER: 11.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether, seeing that under the Report of the Southborough Committee of 5th June no provision is made for salaried officials of the Ministry to be admitted into the permanent service, he will, before any such alteration of the staff of area committees is made, allow the matter to be discussed at the next meeting of the advisory council?

Mr. ROBERTS: The Report of the Southborough Committee gives temporary salaried officials a further opportunity of obtaining permanent posts in the clerical class, but makes no provision for direct appointment to the executive grade. The Committee's findings involve no change whatever in the terms or conditions of
employment of the temporary salaried officials of the Ministry, and no general alteration in the existing personnel is at present contemplated. A resolution dealing with this matter is on the agenda for the meeting of the West Metropolitan Advisory Council to be held on the 29th instant.

Major WHELER: May I express the hope that the statement made by the Minister will be made public, because there is a considerable feeling amongst these men who are now doing the work that they will be superseded, and they think that from their local knowledge they are fully qualified, and, indeed, better qualified, to do the work than permanent civil servants would be. I hope that will be made perfectly clear.

WOMEN (REMUNERATION).

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: 58.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the Resolution passed in the House of Commons on 5th, August, 1921, stating that the question of remuneration of women as compared with men should be reviewed within a period of three years, he will now institute this promised review before further appointments are made in which the principle of unequal pay for equal work is maintained?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject on the 3rd July to the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth, of which I am sending her a copy.

Mrs. WINTRINGHAM: Does that answer mean that the Resolution passed on 5th August, 1921, by this House is not going to be honoured?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The reply given to the Noble Lady was to the effect that that Resolution was being honoured. If the hon. Member will refer to that Resolution she will see that the House at that time declined to commit itself, because of the financial position of the country. It was to be reviewed three years later. That review has taken place, and the Government feel that the financial position of the country is still such as not to enable them to carry the Resolution into effect.

WOMEN CLERKS.

Mr. GILBERT: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received an application from the temporary and other women clerks in Government service to receive a deputation to ask him to consider as to granting the women clerks the same conditions as granted by the Southborough Committee to men and adopted by the Government; and will he be prepared to receive such a deputation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I have received a request for such a deputation from the Association of Women Clerks and Secretaries, and I have arranged for them to meet officers of the Treasury to discuss the claims in question. I understand the meeting is taking place to-day.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to meet a similar deputation of ex-service civil servants?

Mr. GRAHAM: A deputation from them has been received already, and unless there be some fresh point, I am afraid I could not arrange for another deputation.

Oral Answers to Questions — CARLISLE CONSERVATIVE CLUB (LICENCE).

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the State control officials in the Carlisle district have refused an application from the local Conservative Association to be permitted to open licensed club premises; and, if so, will he say on what grounds this action has been taken?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Arthur Henderson): By virtue of an Order made in 1921 under the Licensing Act of that year, the supply of intoxicating liquor in new clubs in the Carlisle district requires the authority of the Secretary of State to make it legal. In the present case the decision not to give the authority asked for was taken by myself, and was in accordance with the recommendation of the Local Advisory Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether other political parties are treated in the same way?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, during the time I have had the opportunity of administering the Act. They are all treated the same, and on the Advisory Committee all parties are represented.

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many there are of these political clubs?

Mr. HENDERSON: Ho. I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEIZURE OF ARMS.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 14 and 21.
asked the Home Secretary (1) whether he has now taken any further steps in connection with the Russian gun-running case; and whether he can now make a statement to the House on the matter;
(2) whether he can now make a statement concerning the recent illicit export of arms to Russia; and whether any further seizure of arms or ammunition has been made?

Mr. HENDERSON: Legal proceedings have been instituted, and two arrests have already been made. No further seizure of arms or ammunition has taken place.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH PRISONERS (RELEASE).

Mr. DUNNICO: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the Government of the Irish Free State released Mr. de Valera and Mr. Austin Slack from Arbour Hill barracks yesterday, His Majesty's Government will sympathetically consider the immediate release of Mr. Art O'Brien and other Irish political prisoners now confined in the gaols of this country?

Mr. HENDERSON: After further consideration of all the circumstances the Government derided that Mr. Art O'Brien and Mr. Sean McGrath, who have been in custody since the 11th of March, 1923, might without detriment to the public interest be now released as an act of clemency. They were set at liberty yesterday.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will this amnesty apply to the three men stated by him to be guilty of the cold-blooded murder of British subjects last year?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know to what the right hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Last week the right hon. Gentleman said that there were three Irishmen confined in this country who were proved guilty of cold-blooded murder. Does this amnesty apply to those three men?

Mr. HENDERSON: The amnesty applies only to the two men referred to in the question.

Colonel GRETTON: (by Private Notice)
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Mr. Art O'Brien and Sean McGrath, who were sentenced a year ago to two years' imprisonment for seditious conspiracy, have been released, and, if so, for what reason, and why he stated in an answer to the hon. Member for the Burton Division (Colonel Gretton) on 3rd July that it was not intended to release them?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already answered the first two points in the question. As to the last point, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that when that answer was given it was not the intention of the Government to proceed to an act of clemency. The decision so to proceed was taken by the Government at the last meeting of the Cabinet on Tuesday.

Colonel GRETTON: What made them reconsider their previous decision? For what reason have these men been released? Is it owing to any pressure from the Government of the Free State or from any party or persons in the Free State?

Mr. HENDERSON: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that it has not been under pressure from the Government of the Free State, but with a general desire to try to promote and maintain good relations between, this country and Ireland.

Viscount WOLMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the invariable experience of letting men of this sort out of prison has been further trouble in Ireland?

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: Will these gentlemen be deported?

Mr. FERGUSON: Is it not a case of the unjust judge and the importunate widow with the Socialist Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — RESTORATION OF ORDER IN IRELAND ACT.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into certain provisions of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act has yet been presented?

Mr. HENDERSON: The Committee referred to was appointed toy the Prime Minister. I am informed that the Report of the Committee has not been received, but I understand that it may be expected at an early date.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is it not a fact that the last meeting of the Committee was held eight months ago, and in May last did not the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Report of the Committee would be presented almost immediately?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think the delay has arisen very largely in consequence of the illness of one of the members of the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (WHITE OVERALLS).

Captain Viscount CURZON: 23.
asked the Home Secretary how many county boroughs and county police forces up to the present have adopted white overalls for the use of the police employed on point duty; and whether he can now say why these overalls are considered unsuitable in the Metropolitan police area?

Mr. HENDERSON: White overalls are used by four county forces and 35 county borough forces. The main reason against their use in the Metropolitan police district is that they are considered unnecessary. Their unsuitability is due partly to the fact that any beat or patrol constable may have occasion to regulate the traffic, and it would be undesirable to have some men who OTO engaged in that duty in overalls and others not.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE PASSPORTS.

Viscount CURZON: 24.
asked the Home Secretary what steps be is taking to prevent an evilly-disposed person obtaining a passport from the Irish passport office in New York, and so obtaining access to this country, which could not be, obtained through the British passport authority in America?

Mr. HENDERSON: I think the Noble Lord is referring to the arrangement whereby visas for the journey to the Irish Free State may be granted in New York by a Free State officer. The safeguard for Great Britain lies in the fact that the Free State officer will be in possession of the same information, and, by agreement between the two Governments, will proceed on the same lines in regard to undesirable aliens as his British colleague. I am satisfied that the interests of this country are being duly protected.

Viscount CURZON: Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that he has got a definite working arrangement which will be observed by the Irish Free State Passport Office in Washington and that he will be in consultation with the British Ambassador in Washington?

Mr. HENDERSON: We have a definite arrangement between the two Governments, and the two officers concerned will be in close collaboration.

Colonel GRETTON: Will an objection raised by the British authorities in Washington be entertained by the Irish Free State Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid I must have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will this country be able to share the visa fees paid by those who come to this country after going to the Irish Free State?

Sir C. YATE: Will any visas be issued without the consent of the British authorities in New York?

Mr. HENDERSON: As this is a matter between two Governments, I must have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

CERTIFICATED TEACHERS.

Mr. COVE: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is
aware that Article 10 (c) or the Code or Regulations for Private Elementary Schools allows of a school staff including not more than one certificated teacher, inclusive of the head teacher, for every complete group of 70 children in average attendance, and that the figure taken for this purpose has stood at 70 since the year 1914; and whether he will consider whether that figure should be reduced, especially in view of the low proportion of certificated teachers employed in some areas and of the difficulty which many certificated teachers are now finding in obtaining employment?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): The facts are as stated, and I am considering the advisability of reducing the figure 70 in this Article to 60 as soon as the local education -authorities' concerned have had time to adjust their arrangements. I am making inquiries as to the probable effect of the change in different areas.

Mr. BLACK: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many certificated teachers were out of employment on 1st July, 1924, and how many supplementary teachers were in employment in the elementary schools on the same date?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I regret I am unable to say what was the total number of certificated teachers out of employment on the 1st July, 1924, and I could not ascertain it without having previously addressed inquiries to all persons who have been recognised by the Board as certificated teachers at any time in the past. The number of supplementary teachers in employment in public elementary schools on the 1st July, 1924, was 10,238.

Mr. BLACK: Can steps be taken to secure employment for these highly-trained certificated teachers, who have been trained at such a large expense to the public?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The whole of the policy which I outlined to the House a day or two ago is calculated to bring into employment a larger number of fully-trained teachers, as against untrained.

Mr. BLACK: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Education the average salaries of male certificated teachers for
the year 1913–14 and 1924–25; the average salaries for female certificated teachers for the years 1913–14 and 1924–25; and what were the respective costs per scholar in the elementary schools?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The average salary of male certificated teachers in 1913–14 and 1922–23 was, respectively, £147 and £346. The corresponding figures for female certificated teachers are £103 and £270. The hon. Member will find further particulars on page 70 of the Report of the Board for the year 1922–23. The average cost per child in public elementary schools in 1913–14 was 96s. 6d.; in 1922–23, 227s. 6d. Full particulars will be found on page 7 of the Memorandum on the Board's Estimates, which has already been made available for hon. Members.

MILITARY COLLEGES (SCHOLARSHIPS).

Mr. WELLS: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider granting scholarships or exhibitions, to be tenable at the Royal Military Academy and the Royal Military College, to pupils at secondary schools to help in meeting the present shortage of suitable candidates?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would involve a new departure, and the Board have no power under their present Regulations to comply with it.

Mr. WELLS: May I ask how the right hon. Gentleman proposes to obtain the most suitable candidates, and will he not, in the case of those boys who show the most promise, put in practice what he preaches and give them some assistance?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am afraid I did not hear the hon. Member's supplementary question.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. PERCY HARRIS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Education what proposals he has for the construction of new secondary schools in England and Wales; how many he proposes to sanction; and how many additional school
places in secondary schools he expects to have by June, 1925?

Mr. TREVELYAN: As I informed the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Cove) on the 6th March last, about 30 proposals for the provision of complete new school buildings received the general approval of the Board during the last financial year. In addition to these, about 40 other proposals for new school buildings have recently been before the Board, and are already approved or about to be approved. It is difficult to forecast how rapidly schemes will mature, but I should hope that, as the result of the erection of new school buildings and the extension of existing ones, the number of places in grant-earning secondary schools will be increased by about 10,000 places by September, 1925. The above figures do not include any additional accommodation resulting from the conversion of elementary schools into secondary schools, or from the admission to the grant list of existing secondary schools, which may amount to a further 2,000 places.

Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what will be the cost of the extra 10,000 or 12,000 places?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I should have to have notice of that question.

Lieut-Colonel JAMES: Has the right hon. Gentleman made arrangements with his colleague, the Minister of Health, as to the supply of labour?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have said that I believe that these buildings will be built, and, therefore, presumably the labour will be found to build them.

Mr. HARRIS: 29.
also asked the President of the Board of Education the number of certificated teachers employed in public elementary schools on the 30th June, 1923, and 1924, respectively?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following are the figures:

The following figures are taken from the returns made to the Board of Local Education Authorities:

The numbers of full-time certificated teachers employed in public elementary
schools on 30th June, 1923, and 30th June, 1924, are as follows:


—
Men.
Women.
Total.


30th June, 1923
36,296
79,234
115,530


30th June, 1924
36,558
78,525
117,083

TRADE SCHOOLS, LONDON.

Mr. P. HARRIS: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether the Board is satisfied with the existing provision of trade schools in London; and whether he is considering any proposals for their increase; and, if so, what?

Mr. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member means by "trade schools" the schools which give a full-time education in preparation for and prior to employment, I consider that the London County Council is better able than the Board to estimate the need for, and the prospects of success of, schools of this special character. The Board have recently received a proposal for a school of this type in connection with boot and shoe manufacture, and it is understood that proposals for additional schools in connection with other occupations may be formulated by the Council.

Mr. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving consideration to the importance of the development of new trade schools dealing with various industries, which are badly needed in a district of this character?

Mr. TREVELYAN: Yes, Sir.

STATE SCHOLARSHIPS.

Mr. ALDEN: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is able to make any statement with regard to the re-established State scholarships; when they are likely to take effect; and whether any change in the method of bestowal is contemplated?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The scheme for State scholarships, which has been revived this year, provides for the award of 200 scholarships annually to assist pupils from grant-aided secondary schools in England and Wales to proceed to the universities. The first scholarships under the revived scheme will be awarded to pupils who will proceed to the universities this autumn. Candidates from schools in Eng-
land will be nominated for scholarships by the University examining bodies which conduct the approved second examinations for secondary schools, and candidates from schools in Wales will be nominated on the result of at special examination conducted for the purpose by the University of Wales. I do not contemplate at present any change in the method of award.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: Are any of these scholarships devoted to taking students to the universities from places in the British Empire outside these islands, or to travelling scholarships?

Mr. TREVELYAN: No, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ROUND-THE-WORLD FLIGHT.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he can make a statement showing exactly what steps have been taken by the Air Ministry to assist in the success of the British round-the-world flight?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Mr. LEACH): Squadron-Leader Maclaren has been lent instruments and maps for his flight and supplied with full meteorological and other advice in regard to the selection of his route. The commanding officers of all Royal Air Force stations on or near the line of his flight were instructed to render all possible help to him, and an engine was lent by Air Headquarters, Iraq, to replace the one damaged in his forced landing in the Sindh Desert.

Captain BENN: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything as to what assistance could be rendered to Squadron-Leader Maclaren in the flight across the Pacific?

Viscount CURZON: Did the hon. Gentleman before Squadron-Leader Maclaren started across the Pacific, take steps to get into touch with the Admiralty, with a view to naval assistance being provided, if necessary, in this very dangerous passage?

Mr. LEACH: Those details were settled before this Government assumed office.

Captain BENN: Could the hon. Gentleman say—this is not a party question at all—whether any communication was
made to the Admiralty by the Air Ministry, so that this gallant officer should have any necessary assistance in this dangerous flight?

Mr. LEACH: I have not any information on that matter, but I presume that representations of that character would be made.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: If the hon. Gentleman would look up the papers, I think he will find that representations were made, and that all the Departments concerned were ready to do everything possible to make the flight a success?

Mr. LEACH: I believe that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — RECONDITIONED MILITARY AIRSHIP.

Commander BELLAIRS: 37.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Secretary of State for Air and any other Members of the Cabinet will take passage to Egypt in the reconditioned military airship?

Mr. LEACH: I am afraid that my Noble Friend's and his colleagues' movements cannot be pledge so far in advance of the event.

Commander BELLAIRS: Will the Air Ministry bear in mind the special responsibility of the Cabinet in overriding the previous decision of the Air Ministry?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Is it not fact that this airship would hold the entire Cabinet?

Commander BELLAIRS: 38.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the cost of reconditioning the military airship for her voyage to Egypt; what date it is anticipated she will be ready for the trip; and what additional accommodation ashore or afloat, involving expense to the Air Ministry or other Departments, is proposed in connection with the trip?

Mr. LEACH: In answer to the first part of the question, it is estimated that the cost of reconditioning the airship for tropical trials at the intermediate base will be, approximately, £20,000. As regards the second and third parts, I am not in a position to say when the airship will be ready for these trials, nor is it possible, pending the final settlement of
the site of the intermediate base, to state what expenditure will be necessary for accommodation, except that it is not likely to be large.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE (STATISTICS).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 39.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what is the total number of officers and other ranks on the active list in the Air Service; what is the number serving in Great Britain; what is the total number of aeroplanes fit for service; what is the number being built; and what is the number of machines now in this country?

Mr. LEACH: The answer to the first part of the question is 3,156 officers, 102 cadets and 28,524 airmen; to the second, 2,125 officers, 102 cadets and 20,501 airmen. It would not be in the public interest to give the information asked for in the remaining parts of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 40.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that persons entitled in 1923–24 to a refund of Income Tax on production of vouchers for 1922–23, did not receive back the same amount of tax as that correctly deducted from the interest payable, namely, at the rate of 5s. in the £, but that the refund was made at 4s. 6d. in the £ the rate in force during 1923–24 when the refund was made; if he will state how the loss of 6d. in the £ is made good to those persons who were exempt from Income Tax but whose incomes suffered deduction at 5s. in the £ whether he is aware that an expectation that the taxpayer, should he live, may receive an adjusting benefit by a future increase in Income Tax, presses heavily on poor people as a substitute for present loss in their small means; and whether he proposes to deal with such cases?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The matter to which the hon. Member refers in his question was discussed in connection with Clause 29 of this year's Finance Bill, and the Financial Resolution which preceded the Clause. As regards the type of case which the hon. Member appears primarily to have in mind, I would invite his
attention to the proviso to Clause 29, under which a taxpayer who has no taxable income, and is, therefore, exempt from Income Tax, is repaid the whole amount of the tax paid by him, whether by deduction or otherwise.

Mr. SAMUEL: In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his satisfactory answer, may I ask whether he will communicate with the tax authorities at Brighton, so that they may alleviate the trouble which is falling upon people in that district in relation to the question I have just put?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the hon. Member will kindly supply me with particulars of the case, I will have it inquired into.

Mr. WELLS: 41.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if Income Tax is now chargeable on a shed standing on land, part of a cemetery, in which a hand bier and grave-digging implements are stored, and owned by the parish council, and from which no income is received?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The existing Income Tax exemptions do not necessarily cover the charge on Cemeteries, but I should not have expected a charge to arise in the circumstances suggested in the question. If the hon. Member will furnish me with such particulars as will enable me to identify the case to which he refers, I will gladly cause inquiry to be made and communicate the result to him in due course.

Mr. PETHICK LAWRENCE: 61.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the judgment of Mr. Justice Rowlatt in the matter of the Income Tax of the Brighton College, in which the learned Judge held that the incidental profits of this educational body, although partaking of the nature of trading profits, were not taxable; and whether, in view of the importance of this decision to educational establishments generally, he can say whether he accepts this decision or intends to appeal against it?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Notice of appeal has been given against this decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (ILL-TREATMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government of
Cuba has yet brought to justice those persons guilty of the ill-treatment and murder of British subjects; and, if not, whether any further steps will be taken to impress upon the Cuban authorities the grave concern felt by His Majesty's Government upon this subject?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): One Cuban accused of the murder of a British West Indian subject has been acquitted on the ground of self-defence. In another case the Cuban has been acquitted of the charge of murder and sentenced to one year's imprisonment for assault. I regret to state that further unsatisfactory reports have been received of the ill-treatment of British subjects in Cuba, and His Majesty's Government propose to publish further correspondence, including the last representation to the Cuban Government

Mr. HARRIS: Does not this add very considerably to the grave concern expressed by His Majesty's Government as to the treatment of British subjects, and what steps are being taken to protect British subjects in Cuba who are engaged in labouring on the sugar plantations?

Mr PONSONBY: I shall be glad if the hon. Member will give me notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (TRAVELLING EXPENSES).

Major GEORGE DAVIES: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many Members object to availing themselves of free railway vouchers; that such vouchers are only issued upon application by Members; that failing such application no charge is made against the public Exchequer by the railway companies; and that nevertheless the Inland Revenue Department is refusing to allow such Members to deduct travelling expenses from their Parliamentary salaries for purposes of Income Tax; and whether he will issue instructions to the Inland Revenue Department that in such cases travelling expenses may properly be deducted?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Under Rule 9 of the Rules of Schedule E in the Income Tax Act, 1918, a Seduction may be claimed in respect of travelling expenses neces-
sarily incurred and defrayed out of the emoluments of an office in the performance of the duties thereof. Following the issue of railway vouchers, a Member is not now necessarily obliged to incur and defray out of his emoluments the cost of travelling between his constituency and Westminster, and the Income Tax allowance is, therefore, no longer legally admissible.

Major DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, as the result of this ruling, a charge is being made against the public Exchequer which otherwise would not be necessary, and that public funds would be relieved of that burden?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid I do not understand that question.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that if a Member asks for a ticket and gets it, it costs £30, and the Treasury loses £30, but if, instead of asking for a ticket, he asks for a rebate of his Income Tax on the £30, the Government is money in pocket?

Mr. SNOWDEN: That might be so, but it does not alter the point of the question, which is that the Member of Parliament is no longer compelled to return his expenses of travelling between here and his constituency, and if he does not take advantage of the voucher, he cannot claim under this Section.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Surely if he wishes, to save the money of the public, he is; entitled to some amount of sympathy?

Lieut.-Colonel LAMBERT WARD: Is it not possible for a Member of Parliament to travel between his home and Westminster, or between his home and his constituency, in pursuance of his Parliamentary duties?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think that matter was discussed when the question was under consideration, and it was decided that the free travelling would not be' available between his home and Westminster unless his home was in his constituency.

Lieut.-Colonel L. WARD: That applies to free travelling. Surely he is entitled to deduct, as legitimate expenditure, travelling expenses incurred between his
home and his constituency or between his home and Westminster?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Surely it is not so. That matter was raised during the discussion on the Finance Bill, and it was pointed out that he was only permitted to deduct for Income Tax purposes travelling expenses between his place of business and his constituency. His constituency is regarded as a place of business, and Westminster is also regarded as a place of business, and that comes under the exemption provided under the Act. His home is not a place of business.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information to show how many Members have refused to avail themselves of these passes, and what the saving to the Exchequer is?

Viscount WOLMER: If a Member does not care to avail himself of a voucher, is not he necessarily compelled to incur the expense of buying a season ticket?

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDENSED MILK.

Mr. ROBERT WILSON: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that some of the wholesale grocery firms are quoting prices for sweetened condensed milk which do not allow for the recent reduction of duty; and whether, if names and particulars are submitted, he will take action in the matter?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I have no information in the sense indicated in the first part of the question. I would remind my hon. Friend that there is no power in law to compel traders to reduce prices when duties are lowered, but generally speaking, the reduction in the Sugar Duty has been passed on to the consumer.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

BUILDING CONTRACTS.

Sir K. WOOD: 46.
asked Prime Minister whether he will cause an inquiry to be made into the charge that building employers have recently added to build-
ing contracts, as from 1st May, the equivalent of an increase in wages which in fact had not been paid?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): It is not thought that any good purpose would be served by such an inquiry as is referred to. The inquiry would be very lengthy and far-reaching, and it is very doubtful whether it would lead to any definite results. I may say, for the information of the hon. Member, that I am advised that the prices in building contracts within the knowledge of the Ministry of Health for the months of March-June inclusive do not indicate any such action generally on the part of contractors as is suggested.

Sir K. WOOD: Inasmuch as this is a very grave charge made by the Secretary of the Building Operatives' Association, is there any evidence at the Ministry of Health that there is any foundation for this charge?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It would be difficult to make inquiry, as suggested in my answer. It would not be easy to find out whether any general alteration in price was due to increase in contracts or to changes in the prices of material. The prices of houses in contracts let within our knowledge during the last two months, and up to June, show there has been in general no rise in the price.

SINGLE-ROOM TENEMENTS.

Mr. ALDEN: 74.
asked the Minister of Health what are the last available figures as to the number of single-room tenements in England and Wales?

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: According to the 1921 Census, which furnishes the most recent figures available on the subject, there were 317,417 private families in England and Wales occupying one room or less apiece, the aggregate number of rooms occupied by them being 317,260.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Will the Minister consider bringing pressure to bear on local authorities to give preference to people living in these single rooms for the new houses being built under the State-aided scheme?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

BRITISH DELEGATION.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is yet in a position to give the names of the delegation of the British Government to the Assembly of the League of Nations; whether the delegation will, as heretofore, be non-party in character and include one woman member?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister who will represent His Majesty's Government at the forthcoming meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations; whether one or more of the British representatives will be a woman; and whether representatives will be chosen from parties other than the Labour party as well as from the Labour party?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The chief delegates of His Majesty's Government at the Assembly of the League of Nations will be the Prime Minister, the Lord President of the Council, the Home Secretary and, when the Prime Minister has to leave Geneva, Professor Gilbert Murray. The substitute delegates will be the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith and Mrs. Swanwick. Should the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs be prevented by his other duties from attending, Sir Cecil Hurst, legal adviser to the Foreign Office, will take his place. Another substitute delegate may also be appointed.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Is it too late to allow a woman to appear as a full delegate to Geneva, and does the Government feel that the time has come to place a woman in that position?

Mr. ACLAND: Does not the list of full delegates include at least one old woman?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no observation to offer on the last question. As to the other, I have nothing to add to my reply.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it true, as stated in the Press, that the Prime Minister will not be able to put in full time, and what arrangements will be made if he is not able to be at Geneva more than one or two days?

Mr. CLYNES: My reply substantially answers that point. I think it may be said the present Prime Minister will be able to put in more time at this Assembly than any other Prime Minister has done.

Sir ELLIS HUME-WILLIAMS: Are there means still available by which the services of Lord Cecil could be utilised?

Mr. CLYNES: I appreciate the spirit of the question, but am not able to add to the terms of my reply.

Mr. P. HARRIS: As there is a well-known representative of the Liberal party, would it not be possible to get a representative of the Conservative party, so that all parties should be represented?

Mr. BALDWIN: Who will be in charge of the Delegation in the absence of the Prime Minister?

Mr. CLYNES: The Lord President of the Council.

TREATY OF MUTUAL ASSISTANCE.

Mr. J. HARRIS: 50
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that the published extracts of the despatch to the Council of the League of Nations rejecting the draft treaty contains no indication of the main lines of a disarmament policy and machinery for such disarmament which would be approved by His Majesty's Government, he proposes to take an opportunity of disclosing to Parliament the broad lines of the disarmament he proposes to advocate in Geneva in September?

Commander BELLAIRS: 53.
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the Autumn Recess, whether he can make a statement now, or before the House adjourns, as to the proposed disarmament negotiations, and what arrangement he aims at such as will make a fully-equipped base for capital ships unnecessary at Singapore?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if his letter of 5th July to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, rejecting the draft treaty of mutual assistance, was accompanied by any alternative proposals of a definite character?

Mr. CLYNES: Paragraph 15 of the letter of 5th July to the Secretary-General
of the League, which has been laid before the House, contains all that can at present be said on the subject.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my question I Can he say whether any definite alternative proposals were put forward by the Prime Minister in that letter?

Mr. J. HARRIS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Article 15 of the Despatch only deals with generalities and does not touch the question of the main lines of policy, and can he say whether His Majesty s Government are prepared or not prepared to agree to the principle of mutual assistance as the price for the reduction of armaments?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only express the hope that my two hon. Friends will find sufficient answer in perusing the correspondence to which I have referred.

Mr. HARRIS: I have perused it most carefully.

Mr. MACLEAN: I have read the correspondence that has been published, and I am asking the Lord Privy Seal whether the Prime Minister has submitted, in addition to that correspondence, any definite alternative proposals?

Mr. CLYNES: My answer has stated that I can add nothing to what is contained in the correspondence.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, in regard to my question, that it was stated that certain proposals for disarmament would be prejudiced by the Singapore project? When are we to know what those proposals are?

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

AFFORESTATION.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed greatly to extend afforestation in Scotland; if he can say when plans and projects in this direction are likely to be announced; and if it is proposed to make the Forestry Commissioners responsible to a Minister of the Crown who will answer for them in this House?

Mr. CLYNES: It is proposed to make an announcement of Government policy in regard to afforestation before the Adjournment.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the announcement contain an answer to the last part of the question?

Mr. CLYNES: I think it will, and it will be made in a form which will permit of discussion.

Major WHELER: Will the Government tell us the number of men who are likely to be employed?

Mr. CLYNES: We are not likely to miss that.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will it take into consideration the number of men who are to be engaged on the Wash?

TUBERCULOSIS (CROFTING AREAS).

Mr. MACKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: 76.
asked the Secretary for Scotland, in view of the present high death rate from tuberculosis due to the deplorable housing conditions in various crofting areas in the Highlands of Scotland, when he proposes to take steps to improve the housing conditions in the Highlands?

Mr. JAMES STEWART (Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health, Scotland): I am aware that the death rate from tuberculosis in various crofting areas is high, though I cannot admit that bad housing is the sole contributory cause. Considerable improvement has recently taken place in the housing conditions in many districts of the Highlands and Islands. Facilities for improving the housing conditions are already available under the existing law and will be extended to some extent under the provisions of the Housing Bill. Under that Bill the whole area within the Highlands and Islands (exclusive of burghs) will be a rural area within which the higher rate of subsidy will be payable in cases to which it is applicable. Under existing arrangements crofters are entitled to assistance on special terms from the Board of Agriculture for the improvement and provision of houses, and in addition they may obtain a subsidy from the local authority in terms of Section 2 of the Housing Act of 1923. Under Clause 7 of the present Bill if a local authority fails to take steps to
make the subsidy under the Act of 1923 available to crofters the Board may pay it direct.
As far as the second part of the question is concerned, every step which it is possible for me to take to accelerate improvement in the housing conditions will be taken.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the death rate from consumption of the lungs in the Island of Lewis, the largest island in Great Britain, is nearly three times as high as the rate for Scotland as a whole, and that that is largely due to the appalling housing conditions?

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: Is not the prevalence of tuberculosis there due to consanguineous marriages?

Mr. STEWART: I am not aware of that.

AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTAL SURVEY.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 77.
asked the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now say when he proposes to make the necessary arrangements for a complete agricultural and forestal survey in Scotland?

Mr. STEWART: The Board of Agriculture for Scotland possess much information respecting agricultural land in Scotland, which has been collected for land settlement and agricultural purposes, and they are constantly adding to and revising such information. I am going into the matter with the Board with a view to seeing what additional information would be required to give a more complete survey for land settlement purposes. The question whether any further survey is required for the purposes of afforestation does not fall within the province of my Department. The general question of co-ordination between afforestation and the creation of small holdings is at present under consideration by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ANGLO-SOVIET CONFERENCE.

Sir F. HALL: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether he expects to be in a position to make a statement to the House before it rises for the Recess as to
the results of the Russian negotiations which have now been proceeding for some months; and whether the House will be asked to approve of financial assistance to the Soviet Government?

Mr. PONSONBY: As already stated in reply to questions on the 21st July by the hon. Members for South Battersea (Captain Viscount Curzon), Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith), and East Hull (Mr. Lumley), a statement as to the results of the Anglo-Soviet negotiations will be made before the Recess.

Sir F. HALL: How long are these delegates to remain in this country? Is there any time limit?

Mr. PONSONBY: I presume that they will remain until the conclusion of the negotiations.

Sir S. HOARE: Will the Government undertake to enter into no Treaty until this House has had an -opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. PONSONBY: Certainly, Sir. This House will have full opportunity of discussion of the findings of the Conference.

Sir F. HALL: Has the hon. Member any idea how long these negotiations are to continue?

COPPER COINAGE (ROYAL MINT).

Mr. GILBERT: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any further contract has been entered into by the Government with the Russian Government for the supply of copper coinage from the Mint; if so, will he give details of the contract, and state the quantities of coins to be supplied; and whether the Mint are making any profit on the transaction?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The Royal Mint has contracted with the Government of the Soviet Union to supply them with a coinage of 40,000,000 copper five-kopeck pieces. The conditions of payment are on similar lines to those agreed in respect of the silver coins of which the hon. Member already has information. The charges are calculated to allow a fair profit to the Mint.

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman, take steps to alter the Trade Facilities Act so that industry in this country can obtain facilities similar to those which the Russians can get?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that this does not come under the Trade Facilities Act.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCESS PROFITS DUTY.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Excess Profits Duty collected since 1st April, 1924?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The approximate amount of Excess Profits Duty (including Munitions Levy) collected between the 1st April and the 19th July, 1924, is £4,486,000. Repayments of duty made during the same period exceed these receipts by about £10,000.

Sir F. WISE: Have we collected the interest paid by the firms on the full amount of the Excess Profits Duty?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am afraid that I shall require notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — McKENNA IMPORT DUTIES.

Sir F. HALL: 59.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantity of imported goods returned to their country of origin since the date when the eventual abolition of the McKenna Duties was announced; and if he will state what is the amount of the duties repaid to the importers of such goods?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The information asked for in the first part of the question is not available. As regards the second part, the amount refunded in drawback on the exportation of goods liable to the McKenna Duties since the announcement of the abolition of those duties in my Budget speech down to the 19th July, inclusive, is £73,284.

Sir F. HALL: Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is unable to give the information asked for in the first part of the question? Surely the Treasury have got it.

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, we have not got it, because the accounts are not kept in a form such as will enable details and particulars to be extracted in the form asked for by the hon. Member.

Lieut-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is this extra £73,000 in addition to the £2,500,000 already lost through the abolition of the duties?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I estimated that the revenue from the McKenna Duties during the current year would be something like £240,000 or £250,000, but already that amount has been exceeded by about £200,000.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Is it not a fact that, if the duties had been kept on, the Estimates would have been proportionately larger?

Mr. SNOWDEN: It is true that had the duties been kept on, there would have been a larger revenue during the year, but we should not have had the enjoyment of the compensating advantages which have accrued to the trade by the abolition of the duties.

Mr. SPEAKER: This little interlude seems to be an escape from yesterday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INLAND REVENUE (COMMISSIONERS' REPORT).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 60.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Sixty-sixth Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue will be published; and, seeing that the Sixty-fifth Report was published more than 18 months ago, what is the reason for the unusual delay?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The 65th Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue was published in October, 1923, and the 66th Report is now in the Press. As regards the delay, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on the 5th June to the hon. and gallant Member for Burton, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE.: Can we hope to have the Report before the House rises for the Summer Recess?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I stated in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) that we hope to get it by August. I have stated now that it is in the Press, and I expect it will be ready in the course of a few days or a few weeks.

Colonel GRETTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps, as indicated, to expedite these Reports in future years?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. We are doing everything we possibly can. There has been a great deal of exceptional work thrown upon the statistical Department of the Board of Inland Revenue during the last year or two, and particularly during the last year, in connection with the preparation of materials for Committees and the like. We very much regret the delay and we hope it will not happen in future years.

Mr. HANNON: Is not a good deal of this delay due to the unnecessary cutting down of the Civil Service?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Would I be justified in assuming that the party of economy opposite desire an increase in the Civil Service?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS.

Mr. MURRAY: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that a well-known firm of Belgian shipowners is desirous of placing an order for the building of four ships at Port Glasgow, and for this purpose has sought assistance under the Trade Facilities Act, offering at the same time satisfactory and undoubted security; that the Trade Facilities Advisory Committee has refused to sanction such assistance for the reason that there are in the meantime ships lying idle; and whether, since other orders of a, similar character have already been lost to this country and placed abroad under the same conditions, he will take steps to ensure that this order and similar orders are not lost to British shipbuilders in the interest of shipowners?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am informed that the Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee after very full consideration are not prepared to recommend a guarantee in the case to which I understand the question refers. I fear I could not accept the statement in the last part of the question; and I could not undertake to interfere in the exercise by the Committee of the discretion which Parliament intended them to have.

Mr. MURRAY: Has the Treasury any power of control or pressure over the Advisory Committee; and, further, has the Treasury any reason to doubt the statement that satisfactory security was
offered in connection with this Order which would have provided work?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is a large discretion left to the Advisory Committee, and as regards this particular case the real reply is that the Shipping Conference of which the applicants were themselves members could not recommend the guarantee.

Mr. MURRAY: Does the hon. Gentleman not know that the conference referred to was a conference of shipowners who are concerned in reducing the number of ships built, and are shipbuilders to be kept out of employment in order to protect the profits of shipowners?

Mr. W. GREENWOOD: May I suggest this application should be sent through Russian sources, and that they would get greater attention.

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a question of the security of a mortgage on a vessel under the Belgian flag in this country and as to whether it is advisable that the Trade Facilities Act should be applied in such cases.

Mr. GRAHAM: It would be impossible in reply to supplementary questions to deal with all these guarantees, but as regards shipping guarantees, all sense of unfairness must be removed when I remind the House that, out of £13,000,000 guaranteed for shipping, nearly £7,000,000 have been guaranteed to Glasgow and the West of Scotland.

Sir F. HALL: Under the British flag.

Oral Answers to Questions — GRETNA (SALE OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY).

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that an offer was made for the ether plant at Gretna by the Alcohol Fuel Corporation, Limited, which corporation professed to be able ultimately to give employment to thousands of people in the manufacture of a motor fuel; if he can say why the offer was refused; and, if refused on financial grounds, will he say whether the Government itself intends to use this plant in the production of motor fuel?

Mr. GRAHAM: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. An offer was received from the Alcohol
Fuel Corporation in May, 1923, and was, after full consideration, declined in June, 1923, on financial grounds. As regards the last part of my hon. Friend's question, the plant is being offered for sale by auction to-morrow (Friday) as a going concern.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the absolutely ridiculous prices at which this public plant is being disposed of, will the hon. Gentleman undertake that this very valuable plant will not be disposed of at rubbish prices so long as firms are able and willing to offer commercial prices for it?

Viscount WOLMER: Are we to understand from that question that the hon. Member is now in favour of private enterprise?

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member will look at the last part of the question he will be able to understand.

Mr. HARDIE: In view of the large demand for this article for our defensive purposes in this country, will the hon. Gentleman take the advice of those who know and keep that plant, and use it for the production of fuel for national defence instead of handing it out at scrap prices, as has been done during the last few days with this national property?

Mr. GRAHAM: In reply to a question some days ago it was stated that the Government had decided to put up this property for sale and that the sale was almost due, but as regards the major part of Gretna there is a safeguard in the terms of sale as regards the disposal of the property. The sale is proceeding.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Major GEORGE DAVIES: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information regarding the recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease at Blandford, Dorset; whether the disease is spreading in that district; and whether the outbreak has been traced to its source?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The first intimation
the Ministry received of any cattle disease in Dorset was a request from Mr. E. Whitley Baker, M.R.C.V.S., on Friday, 11th July, for a consultation with one of the Ministry's inspectors in connection with two sows on the premises of Captain Martin, Heathfield, Broadstone. Foot-and-mouth disease was first confirmed in the county on Monday, 14th July, and up to date the total number of outbreaks confirmed is 11. The only spread of disease has been from local infection, but no origin of the first outbreak has been obtained.

MILK DEPOT, NORTH LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a district agricultural society has opened a depot in North. London and is selling milk at 4d. per quart, and that they claim to be receiving financial assistance from the Government to extend their supplies; will he state what financial help has been promised such society; and if the matter will be brought before the House for its approval?

Mr. SMITH: My right hon. Friend has seen statements on this matter in the Press, but the society in question has made no application to the Department for financial assistance

Major WHELER: May we take it that this agricultural society is not receiving any help at all from the Government?

Mr. SMITH: Yes.

PATRINGTON FARM SETTLEMENT.

Mr. HANNON: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Patrington Farm Settlement is still being run at a loss; whether he is aware that the accumulated losses on the estate were £12,101, and on the farm £46,525, on 31st March, 1923; whether the figures for the accumulated losses under both heads at the 31st March, 1924, are available; and, if so, what steps he is taking to reduce those losses?

Mr. SMITH: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend is aware that the accumulated losses on the working of the Patrington Farm Settlement on 31st March, 1923, were as stated by the hon. Member. The estate loss of £12,101 and the farming loss of £46,525 were, however, arrived at after
taking into account interest on Exchequer advances, amounting to £13,049 and £14,305 respectively. The actual cash loss on farming operations during the financial years 1921–22 and 1922–23 was, I understand, closely comparable with that sustained by other farmers in the district. Accounts for the year ended 31st March, 1924, are not yet available, but I am informed that a further loss was sustained during the year partly owing to a serious outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which occurred on the farm. With regard to the last part of the hon. Member's question, the working of the farm settlement is being watched carefully. Steps have already been taken, and will continue to be taken, with a view to improving the financial results of the scheme. I am unable, however, to hold out any hope that the net cash receipts during the present year or in the near future will be sufficient to meet the whole of the charges for interest on Exchequer advances and other overhead charges.

Mr. HANNON: Is the educational influence of this experiment on local agriculture sufficient to justify the losses which have been previously sustained?

Mr. SMITH: I must have notice of that question.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Who is in charge of the farm?

Sir F. WISE: Is it not a fact that every farm settlement has made a great loss under State control up to the 31st March, 1923?

Mr. BLACK: As very few men are employed in these farms, will the Minister of Agriculture take into consideration the winding-up of this responsibility as early as possible, and the selling of the farms to the county council or the people who are on them?

Oral Answers to Questions — CHILD-WELFARE CENTRES.

Mr. ALDEN: 73.
asked the Minister of Health the number of new child-welfare centres at December, 1923, and at the present time?

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: According to the information in the possession of my Department, the number of maternity and child-welfare centres in England and Wales was 2,201 on 1st December, 1923, and 2,272 on 1st July, 1924.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (MUNICIPALITIES).

Mr. MACKINDER: 75.
asked the Minister of Health which municipalities insure their own risks in respect of workmen's compensation and, of the remainder, how many insure with the Municipal Mutual?

Mr. GREENWOOD: About 30 authorities have obtained powers by special Act to establish funds for meeting claims for workmen's compensation; but my right hon. Friend does not know how many of them have acted under these powers; nor does he know how many municipalities insure with the association mentioned. The matter is not one which has in the ordinary course to be reported to my right hon. Friend's Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (LADIES IN DINING ROOMS).

Mr. MARDY JONES: 78.
asked the right hon. Member for Cheltenham, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether he is aware of the anomaly that a lady Member of the House can entertain a gentleman friend in the Stranger's Dining Boom, whereas a male Member of the. House is not permitted to entertain a lady friend in the said room; and will he undertake to rectify this anomaly?

Sir JAMES AGG-GARDNER: This suggestion has been considered more than once by the Kitchen Committee, and we regret that, owing to the restricted dining room accommodation, its adoption is impracticable. Further, I would remind the hon. Member that there are already three dining rooms to which ladies may be invited to dinner, while there is only one room in which a Member can entertain his male friends.

Mr. MARDY JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is the most attractive of the dining rooms?

Sir H. BRITTAIN: To counterbalance this, could we apply for a few men's tickets in the Ladies' Gallery? There is always room there, the other gallery is crowded.

Miss JEWSON: Could the hon. Gentleman make it perfectly clear that lady Members have no special privileges, because they cannot take their friends in
any more than the men can? It ought to be clear to the House that we have no special privileges.

Mr. MARDY JONES: May I ask the right hon. Member whether he is prepared to induce the Government to go to the country on this question?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. BALDWIN: Would the Lord Privy Seal kindly state what is the business for next week, and what orders are to be taken to-night after 11 o'clock?

Mr. CLYNES: The business for next week will be:—

Monday: Agricultural Wages Bill, Report and Third Heading; Irish Free State Land Purchase (Loan Guarantee), Money Resolution, in Committee of the Whole House.

Tuesday: Supply, Votes for the Colonial Office and Middle Eastern Services.

Wednesday: Supply, Vote for Ministry of Labour.

Thursday: Supply, Navy Votes.

On Wednesday and Thursday the Committee and Report stages, respectively, of all outstanding Votes in Supply will be put from the Chair at 10 o'clock. The business for Friday will be announced later. We shall ask the House to suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule to-night in order to take Orders Nos. 2, 5 and 6 on the Paper.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the London Traffic Bill, as amended in another place, will be taken?

Mr CLYNES: I am not able to state that; but as soon as possible.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: Is it intended to present any further Supplementary Estimates, other than those already presented, before Supply is ended?

Mr. CLYNES: Not so far as I am aware.

Mr. FOOT: Is it the intention of the Government to take the Report stage of
the Representation of the People Bill, which was dealt with so long ago in Committee?

Mr. CLYNES: I am afraid that there is no chance of returning to that subject before we rise in August.

Mr. PRINGLE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say now when the House will rise?

Mr. CLYNES: I am not yet able to make an announcement on the point.
Ordered,
That the Housing (Financial Provisions) (re-committed) Bill may be considered, at this day's Sitting, in Committee and, as amended, on re-committal by the House, notwithstanding the practice of the House with regard to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.
Ordered,
That other Government Business have precedence this day of the Business of Supply.
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Clynes.]

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. A. T. DAVIES: The following Question stood on the Paper in the name of
43 To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the adverse exchange prevailing between sterling and dollars, resulting in loss to Great Britain in the redemption of our debt to the United States, was contemplated by the Debt Funding Commission when the agreement was made; what approximately has been, the amount of that loss to date since payments by Great-Britain began or, alternatively, if no loss has accrued, what arrangements have been made to prevent such loss.

Viscount CURZON: I desire to call attention to Question No. 43, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. A. T. Davies), who is invariably absent, and who was not in his place to put the Question. In view of the importance of this question, I ask you, Mr. Speaker whether you will allow it to be put by special notice?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot do that. The Noble Lord referred to this question before, and I think the hon. Member, in whose name it stands, has, in general, followed the advice given him by the Noble Lord.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of the Proceedings of the Standing Committee to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be taken into consideration upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

BILLS REPORTED.

Bradford Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill,

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie Upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Bill [Lords],

Reported, without Amendment; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Taf Fechan Water Supply Bill [Lords],

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP G).

Sir Joseph Nall reported from the Committee on Group G of Private Bills; That, for the covenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—
British Museum (No. 2) Bill,
Isle of Man (Customs) Bill,
Royal Samaritan Hospital for Women, Glasgow, Order Confirmation Bill,
Edinburgh Corporation (Tramways, &c.) Order Confirmation Bill.
Rothesay Tramways (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill,

London County Council (Money) Bill, without Amendment.

COAL MINES (WASHING AND DRYING ACCOMMODATION) BILL,

"to render compulsory the provision of washing and drying accommodation at Coal Mines," presented by Mr. SHINWELL; supported by Mr. Webb; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Conditions as to town-planning schemes and density.)

It shall be the duty of a local authority on submitting proposals for the provision of houses for the purposes of this Act to satisfy the Minister—
(a) that they have taken into account the requirements of any town-planning scheme likely to be made in respect of or in the neighbourhood of the area in which the houses are to be provided; and
(b) that the rate of density of the houses, ascertained in such manner as the Minister may determine, will not, except with the consent of the Minister, exceed eight per acre in an agricultural parish and twelve per acre elsewhere.—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Wheatley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this Clause is to give effect to purposes which were indicated in Clauses or Amendments moved during the Committee stage by the hon. and gallant member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. T. Thomson), and other hon. Members below the Gangway. The first part of the New Clause deals with town-planning schemes and the second with the question of density, and as these have been fully discussed during the Committee proceedings I do not intend to say anything further in explanation of them.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: As the Mover of the Amendment to which this new Clause is the response, I should like to say that there is a difference between the two proposals. The original suggestion was that any scheme of housing brought before the Department should not be prejudicial to any town planning which might be required later on. Under this Clause all the promoters of a scheme have to do is to satisfy the Minister that they have taken into account the requirements of any town-planning scheme likely to be made. I think it is not so efficient a method of carrying out the
ideal at which we aim, but if we can have a promise from the Minister that the words "taking into account " mean something more than merely looking at a scheme, I shall be prepared to accept the new Clause. I should like to know how the Minister interprets those words.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I the hon. and gallant Member will see that it is intended that the local authorities should give due consideration to these requirements.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: We are grateful to the minister for having accepted the proposal contained in our Amendments in the spirit in which it was made. I differ from the hon. and gallant Member opposite, and I think the Minister's new Clause goes even further than his proposal did, because it includes all houses and not merely schemes of 25 houses or more.

Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to thank the Minister for what he has done in this Clause in relation to the rural areas. It will greatly assist the rural district councils in attempting to build cottages in rural England to have this provision enabling them to ensure that there shall be so much ground to each house.

Mr. BLACK: I trust when the Minister is applying the provision with regard to density to urban areas he will not be too severe on the authorities who make applications. I took the trouble of communicating with the town clerk of Leicester with regard to this matter, and he has sent me a letter, which I received this morning, in which he says:
As you are aware, in Leicester there is a Considerable amount of unbuilt upon land fronting main streets. This land would not at its cost support 12 houses to the acre, and 18 or 20 would be nearer the figure.
The streets in that case are all ready for building. I do not propose to move an Amendment, but, I should like an assurance from the Minister that in all such cases where there are special circumstances, where the streets are made up and it is not a newly developed estate, such applications will be considered.

Mr. VIVIAN: I desire to ask the Minister in what sense he proposes to interpret the words "likely to be made." There are many small towns where they have no intention at, all of making town-
planning schemes. Compulsion does not apply to the small towns in regard to town-planning schemes, and some of their housing projects might very well be arranged so as to stand in the way of the advance of town planning. I desire to see compulsion and proposals much wider than the present proposals in town-planning legislation, but, in the absence of that, the Minister should assist by interpreting these words in a generous way and drawing the attention of the authorities of the smaller towns to the importance of town-planning schemes.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): With regard to the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Black), it is clearly the intention of this Clause to give the Minister power where there are special circumstances which make it practicable to build more than 12, to allow the local authority to do so. As regards the point raised by the last speaker, there are no legal powers of compulsion on areas of less than 20,000 inhabitants in regard to town planning, and that matter is clearly outside the scope of this Bill. This Clause, however, will promote town planning in the smaller towns, and the Department will do all it can to help in that matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Adjustment of difficulties between local authorities.)

Where the Minister approves the proposals of a local authority in relation to the provision of houses in the area of another local authority and any difference arises between those authorities with respect to the carrying out of the proposals such difference may be referred by either authority to the Minister, whose decision shall be final and binding on the respective authorities.—[Mr. P. Harris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 P.M.
This is a very simple proposal which I hope the Minister will accept. What it does is to prevent delay. I have had considerable experience in the working of the various Housing Acts since the War,
including both the Addison scheme and the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lady wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), and owing to varying views as to by-laws sometimes the occupation of houses already constructed has been hold up for many weeks and even months. That does not suggest any blame on the authorities concerned. Local authorities of large towns have often to develop estates outside their area, and sanitary authorities, though having equally good standards, often have varying standards. The same applies to roads. I do not suppose that there is any greater difference of opinion than in the best road surface suitable for a housing estate. While there is really no serious difficulty between the authorities, the development of an estate is often held up for weeks because of a difference of opinion between the two road engineers concerned. The same applies to the construction of sewers. The ideal kind of sewer is a very controversial matter. Sanitary authorities have their own different standards, and there is no generally accepted standard throughout the Kingdom. This is a very practical way of avoiding friction when one authority goes into the area of another, and of avoiding at the same time that delay which has taken place all over the country. I suggest that this arbitration would save the Minister a great deal of anxiety and trouble, and would get the houses rapidly occupied in order to relieve over-crowding.

Mr. GILBERT: I beg to second the Motion.
This new Clause particularly applies to London, where the London County Council have to go outside the county in order to put up housing estates. It is common knowledge that they have housing estates in Essex and in Croydon and in various other districts. The standards of many of the local authorities are quite different from the standard of the London County Council, and in case of a dispute arising, as has happened in the past, it is very desirable that arbitration should he allowed as proposed by this new Clause.

Mr. WHEATLEY: If the House desires this new Clause, I have no objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. SPEAKER: The fourth of the new Clauses—(Provision of houses for persons displaced by Metropolitan borough councils)—is not selected.

CLAUSE 1.—(Extension of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 24 to houses completed before 1st October, 1939.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.- Colonel Fremantle)—in page 1, line 19, at the end to insert the words
Provided that a proposal for the provision of twenty-five or more houses under this Act shall not be approved, nor shall any provision be made towards any expenses incurred by a local authority, or by a society, body of trustees, or company in such case unless or until the Minister is satisfied that the carrying out of the proposal or any part of it will not be prejudicial to any town-planning scheme required to be prepared or executed under the Town Planning Acts, 1909 and 1919, or any other Act amending those Acts "—
has already been covered by one of the new Clauses.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 25, at the end, to insert the Words
Where a local authority purchase any such hiatuses as are referred to in the said paragraph for the purposes of Part III of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, the houses shall not be treated as houses provided by the local authority themselves within the meaning of the said Act of 1923 or this Act if the houses are houses which have been completed before the passing of this Act or have been occupied prior to the purchase.
The House may remember that during the Committee stage there was a long discussion on the question of granting power to local authorities to purchase houses from people who had erected them without having gone through the ordinary process, and I promised to insert words ill the Bill which would make that perfectly clear. In the course of the discussion, the right hon. Member for Lady-wood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) pointed out that local authorities had already power under the Act of 1919 to purchase these houses, but what the promoters of the Amendment had in view was to re-assert that power and to make it quite clear that houses so purchased might, in certain circumstances, become eligible for the subsidy. It was never the intention of the promoters of the Amendment that the local authorities should exercise their
power under the 1919 Act and that all houses they purchased should be entitled to the subsidy. Quite clearly, they wanted to exempt existing houses, because the object of the Bill is to promote the construction of new houses. Therefore, in drafting this Clause, what we have clone is to exclude the houses which will not be eligible for the subsidy and to confine it to the houses that will—to those erected after the passing of the Bill. I intend issuing a Circular to the local authorities after this Bill becomes law to draw their special attention to these powers and to the provisions of this Clause.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: The paragraph of the 1919 Act referred to appears to be paragraph (b) of Sub-section 1 of Section 1. I was not aware that that paragraph had ever been held to entitle a local authority to purchase existing houses.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Try Section 12, Sub-section (2).

Lord E. PERCY: Section 12, yes. But surely this Amendment comes at the end of Sub-section (2) of Clause (1) of the Bill, and, as the Bill reads, the said paragraph is Paragraph (b) of Section 1 (i) of the Housing Act 1923.It is not Section 12 of the Act of 1919. I do not want, however, to delay the House on a question of pure drafting. Section 12 of the Act of 1919 gives the local authority power to purchase houses which can be made suitable for the working classes. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's Department has always interpreted that as meaning that the local authority could buy any house, could buy a working-class house, and let it to members of the working class, and that it did not merely refer to a house which required to be reconstructed or adapted for the purpose of the housing of the working class. I want to ask whether, in the Circular to which he referred, he will give definite direction to the local authorities that Section 12 of the Act of 1919 does give them power to purchase any house which will be suitable for the housing of the working class, whether by adaptation or whether by taking it simply as it is.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Our desire in pressing the Amendment which my right hon. Friend agreed to meet on the Report
stage was, of course, to create new houses much more than to deal with any adaptation of existing ones. Our great desire was that the local authority should be able to purchase houses outside those offered them by what is called the building trust. I agree with the Noble Lord that the words seem to be the jargon that is familiar to, and desired by, local authorities. It is exceedingly difficult to follow, but, in so far as I have been able to acquire the power of interpretation of that jargon, this seems to me to meet fully the request which was made on the Committee stage. It will give local authorities power to purchase new houses front anyone who cares to put them up under any conditions they please, subject to the overriding conditions of the Act itself, and, as that is what we primarily desire, we are glad to accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir ROBERT KAY: As one who spoke in the discussion in Committee, I think that the Minister has fully met the views of those who put the Amendment down, though not perhaps in the exact form in which we desired it, giving in this Act an explicit power of purchase. But, I think, we do, by reference to Section 1, Subsection (1, a), get the power we need. I think the expenses which are authorised by that Section could be used for the purchase of houses such as we desire. I am wondering whether the Minister has paid any attention to, or has looked at Sections 54 and 55 of the. Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, with a view to deciding whether or not it will be necessary, in the case of a proposed purchase by a rural sanitary authority, for them, in addition to obtaining the consent of the Minister, to apply to the county council for sanction to adopt the Act, and whether it will be necessary to hold a local inquiry under that Act. It seams to me that such an inquiry would be necessary, and I have not been able to find anything which would make the holding of such an inquiry unnecessary. If the Minister agreed that such an inquiry might have to be held and that it was undesirable to have both an appeal to himself for his own consent and also a public inquiry, would he be willing to add at the end of the Section words something to this effect:
Where a purchase is made by a rural sanitary authority with the consent of the Minister of Health, it shall not be necessary
to hold an inquiry or obtain the certificate referred to in Sections 54 and 55 of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890.
I am glad that we have this opportunity of dealing with a question of very considerable importance in the provision of houses. Speaking as one who has served on a housing committee, I can say that we certainly did not know that we had the power to purchase completed houses and obtain the benefit of any subsidy, and I believe that on an inquiry once being made to the Department we got a very doubtful answer as to the powers we possess. Now that this is made clear, I am glad that the Minister is going to circularise the local authorities and press upon them the powers which they have. I would like to join in the appeal which my hon. Friend (Mr. Black) made a little time ago not to be very severe in pressing the ordinary conditions which apply to houses built under these Acts. We have, in most cities, large numbers of partly-developed estates, and they can be fully developed and houses can be obtained for the working class at a very much cheaper rate than would be possible if the Minister had to insist on all the conditions, which quite properly he asks for in the case of new estates, being complied with. I hope that he will deal leniently with them, because I believe that the provision of these houses by small builders will be a very great safeguard against an increase in the price of building. They keep no expensive staff, they work along with their men, and the experience of all who have been engaged in the building industry is, that houses produced under such conditions are built much more cheaply than and equally as well as, those produced under large contracts, similar to those made by local authorities recently.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 2.—(Increased Government con tributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment standing in tile name of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy)—in page 2, line 15, after the word "parish," to insert the words
and to be occupied by a worker whose principal means of livelihood is, or has been, derived from employment in agriculture 
goes beyond the Money Resolution.

Lord E. PERCY: May I make a submission? The Money Resolution, as I understand it, says that the increased subsidy shall be payable only in the case of houses built in an agricultural parish, but the Minister retains full power to grant or refuse his approval. He would be able to refuse to approve any house which was not built for an agricultural labourer. Therefore, in putting down the Amendment to enable the Minister to apply the contribution to the case of any house in an agricultural parish which may not have been built for an agricultural labourer, I submit I am not going outside the Financial Resolution, as I am not proposing to increase the charges in any way.

Mr. SPEAKER: But it would bring in more houses.

Lord E. PERCY: It cannot possibly do that. When I put the Amendment down it was in a different form. It would have substituted the words "house that was intended for an agricultural labourer" for the words "house be situated in an agricultural parish." It is still necessary that the houses should be situated in an agricultural parish, but only such houses in that parish as are built for agricultural labourers may be proposed for the subsidy, whereas any house in the, area, whether built for agricultural labourers or anyone else, would be eligible.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think I can see my way to allow this Amendment to be proposed.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert the words
Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction involve a reduction in the cost of the houses substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be.
This is the Amendment which is down in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ladywood Division (Mr. N. Chamberlain) and myself.
The Minister will remember that when we were discussing what is now Subsection (2) of Clause 8, soy right hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood pointed out that it was absurd to say, as the Clause did say,
If at any time it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister that a local authority has without reasonable cause refused to adopt a new material or method of construction which in his opinion would reduce the cost of the house .… the Minister may make such deduction from the amount of the contribution payable by him as in his opinion is reasonable having regard to the amount of the unnecessary expenditure so incurred by the local authority.
In effect, that means that if the local authority refuses to adopt cheap material and other devices to cheapen the house, the subsidy may be reduced in proportion to the amount of savings which the local authority has omitted to effect. It is absurd to say that and at the same time grant a very large sum towards houses which have been in fact built at a very cheap price by reason of the use of these materials. It would be perfectly absurd to give an equivalent to the present value of £157, or, still more, to increase the subsidy in agricultural parishes to an equivalent of the present Value of £230 towards houses which may be built for only £280. That would be, obviously, absurd and my right hon. Friend's Amendment is designed to give the Minister power to reduce the subsidy in such cases.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have considered this Amendment very carefully, and I am prepared to accept it, subject to some verbal alterations. I do not think there is anything in it which violates the understanding come to in Committee. That understanding was that where the rent on account of such cost of the building had to be increased beyond the appropriate normal rent the tenants and the local authorities were to get the full benefit of the subsidy as applied to an agricultural parish, and, although we do not contemplate there would be a reduction beyond the first three years, if such reduction did take place it should be made upon the State contribution. The proposals here provide that the reduction shall be substantially greater than the equivalent of £4 10s. I shall desire to make a slight verbal alteration in the Amendment, and, subject to that drafting alteration, I propose to accept it

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I am prepared to accept the drafting of the Amendment which the Minister prefers, and I would like to move my Amendment in that form.

Mr. SPEAKER: I have not been supplied with a copy of the revised form. Perhaps it would be better if the Noble Lord withdrew his Amendment, and it could then be moved in the new form.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 19, at end, insert the words
Except that in any case where proposals are submitted to the Minister which, in consequence of the adoption of new materials or new methods of construction, involve a reduction in the cost of each house substantially greater than the equivalent of four pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years, the Minister may reduce the contribution by such amount as he shall think just and reasonable, provided that such reduction shall not be so great as to impose any burden upon the local rate or upon the said society, body of trustees, or company, as the case may be."—[Mr. N. Chamberlain.]

In page 2, line 33, leave out the word "Paragraphs," and insert the word "Paragraph"; leave out "and (c)."

In page 2, line 42, at the end, insert the words
or, in the Case of a house not so let, to the person by whom the rates on the house are Payable."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Mr. SPEAKER: With regard to the next five Amendments on the Paper, they cannot lie taken on the Report stage, as they involve an addition to the areas eligible for the higher subsidy. They are:

In page 3, line 9, after "parish," insert
excluding the value of any permanent railway works.

In page 3, line 1l, after "account," insert
Provided that in computing the proportion of agricultural land in a parish the valuation of sporting rents shall be included as part of the value of agricultural land, but railroads, water or electrical works and undertakings, or institutions erected for the public service and conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned shall not be included in the total valuation of the pariah for the purposes of these provisions.

In page 3, line 11 after "account," insert
Provided that in computing the net annual value of the agricultural land in a parish such net annual value shall include the valuation of sporting rights, if any, but any valuation in respect of railroads, waterworks, tramway undertakings, docks, and telegraphs shall be excluded in ascertaining the total net annual value of such parish for the purposes of this Act.

In page 3, line 15, at end, insert
excluding the inmates of any public, or private hospital or institution.

In page 3, line 19, at end, insert
(3) The expression 'agriculture' includes dairy farming, and the use of land as grazing, meadow, or pasture land, or orchard, or osier land, or woodland, and the use of the land for the purpose of the trade or business of a market-gardener or nurseryman.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: May I submit that these Amendments, or some of them, do not add anything to the cost of the Bill. I understand it is proposed to recommit the, Bill, and I would ask whether it would not be in order then to discuss these Amendments?

Mr. SPEAKER: It all depends on the form in which the House agree to recommit the Bill. The Motion on the Paper is simply to recommit it in regard to particular Amendments, but, if the House so desire, it can widen the terms of recommittal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If we widen the terms of recommittal, would it be possible also to include the Amendment of my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), which you ruled out of order with reference to the question of houses built for agricultural labourers?

Mr. SPEAKER: When the House goes into Committee, it will be for the Chairman to decide that point.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I ask whether, under Standing Order 41, it will he possible to recommit the Bill in respect of such an Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has not been held that the House is barred in a case of this kind, after recommittal, from discussing such an Amendment.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, to leave out the words "and before the passing of this Act."
I may point out that as the Bill now stands these words already appear earlier in the same Sub-section.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, after the word "house," insert the words "which is subject to special conditions."
This Amendment merely makes the Bill a little clearer. It does not alter the substance of it in any way.

Lord E. PERCY: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is a little beyond the mark in supposing that this Amendment makes more clear what is the intention Of the Bill. The Clause has this effect, that the London County Council may supplement any contribution made by the Minister in respect of certain houses to an extent not exceeding £2 5s., payable annually for a period not exceeding 40 years. I want to know why is this only to apply to houses "subject to special conditions"? Why should it be confined to that class of house? If a Metropolitan Borough Council provides houses under the Act of 1923, and does not subject them to special conditions, why should not the London County Council have the power to make a grant towards such houses? It would be to the advantage of the Exchequer, and I want to know what is the reason for limiting the application of this provision to houses subject to special conditions.

Mr. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lord, I am sorry to say, is quite wrong. The Act of 1923 already provides for supplementary payments in respect of houses not subject to special conditions.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, at the end, to insert the words
and for the purposes of paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1) of Section three of this Act the amount of any such supplemental contribution shall be treated as if it were part of the expenses borne by the local rate in the borough.
This Amendment is also for the purpose of making clear the intentions of the Bill, and, like the previous Amendment, it does not in any way alter its substance.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: At this point, I have a manuscript Amendment, handed in by the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb). I have not had time to master its effects, but perhaps the hon. Member will move, and explain it to the House.

Sir C. COBB: I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, after the words last inserted, to add the words
and the Council and any metropolitan borough council may enter into agreements by which the metropolitan borough council may contribute such amounts as may be agreed, subject to the provisions of this Act, towards the provision of houses by the Council within or without the county to meet any special needs of any such metropolitan borough council.
The object is to meet the difficulties of borough councils who have no space within their own area in which to provide houses in those cases where, under special circumstances, they have to evict tenants or tenants are, as a matter of fact, evicted. We have had an alteration of that kind quite recently in Fulham. The Clause itself deals, in its earlier portion, with the difficulties of three particular borough councils, Woolwich, Wandsworth and Lewisham. These three councils have a certain amount of land within their own areas, which they are able to use for housing purposes, but the other boroughs in London have practically no land within their own areas which they can use for these housing purposes, and the object of ray Amendment is to bring it about that an agreement may be made between the London County Council and any particular borough council when special difficulties arise, so that the cost of rehousing these people in houses provided by the London County Council may he met by the borough council. That is to say, the borough council would pay the £4 10s. instead of the County Council, and houses built by the County Council would be put at the disposal of that particular borough to meet, the special circumstances of the case. There are hundreds of small slums in London consisting of 10 houses or less, which could be dealt with in this way, and it would be a very great advantage to our London housing schemes if we were able to deal with these small slums in the various parts of London when they get in such a condition that the tenants have to be evicted and the houses to be demolished, because they are no longer suitable for human habitation.

Mr. P. HARRIS: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is a concession to some local authorities in London who are very anxious to deal with some of the worst small slums in their district. The large authority, the county conned, is responsible for dealing with large slum clearances, but the local authority, the borough council, deals with the small slum areas, and many of these borough councils find themselves held up in their desire to make small improvement schemes, because they have no land where they can rehouse the people. They want to be able, outside their area, to rehouse some of the people whom they have to evict from these small slums. Further, a local authority sometimes finds itself in the position of wanting to build, say, new baths or public offices of some kind, and that entails the removal of a certain number of dwellings. At present, owing to the fact that there is no land unbuilt on, the whole of the county boroughs of London, except, Woolwich, Lewisham and Wandsworth, find themselves held up. We have had one example recently where a council, taking a long view, are not anxious to add to the number of persons living in the borough, and while they are making a slum clearance, they do not want to rehouse the people in the district, but they want to go to the central authority and say: "We want you to allocate to us houses on one of your large estates, where we can put, the people whom we are turning out." It is not a big thing, but it will do something to oil the complicated wheel of the machinery of building in London. It is a question of agreement between the borough councils and the County Council, and where there is no agreement, of course, the provision will not operate.

Sir K. WOOD: I have no objection to the Amendment, although it is somewhat difficult to follow, but I hope there will not be too much optimism about it. My own constituency of Woolwich has been referred to and if there be any question of people evicted from Fulham coming down there, I must remind the hon. Member for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) that we have our own evictions in Woolwich, and they must be dealt with first. Secondly, if there be any question of anybody thinking that at some date in the immediate future people from Fulham can go to Woolwich, or that, by some
means or other, houses are going to be erected quickly in Woolwich, I must disabuse their mind of that also. There is a difficulty in Woolwich, as elsewhere, in getting the men to build the houses, and at one time or another ail the schemes there have been retarded on that account. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friend, ably as he represents Fulham on this occasion, will not have undue hopes, because I think most hon. Members will agree that, at any rate, the needs of Woolwich must first be met, and that the very large number of people on the waiting lists at Woolwich, many of whom have waited patiently for years now, must first be considered.

Mr. WHEATLEY: It is rather embarrassing to have an Amendment thrown at one's head without having had a script copy put before one. There may be good reasons for the omission, but it makes it very difficult to deal with the Amendment. However, I have been legally advised that this is an Amendment that may be accepted, subject to this, that it may be necessary in another place to make certain alterations in it. I accept it.

Mr. MILLS: I happen to be a constituent of the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), but it by no means follows that he knows much more about the housing problem because, of that. I also happen to be an alderman of the borough of Woolwich, and I would like to mention that the Woolwich Borough Council, with 23 Labour councillors out of 29, have built more houses than any, other two boroughs put together in London. The difficulty has not been one of getting builders, but the difficulty has been that we can deal with quite a lot of the people that come from other districts, and I hope the more we get the quicker we shall enable the hon. Member for West Woolwich to represent Fulham

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Special conditions.)

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, after the word "that," to insert the words: "subject to the following conditions."
This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out paragraph (b).
I merely move this for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of the paragraph In Committee the question was raised of the powers of the local authorities in regard to "special condition" houses, on the question of subletting and lodging. I raised questions about it myself, and the Minister, after considerable discussion, rose in his place and said that he would be prepared, on the Report stage, to bring in an Amendment which would deal with the question. I gather that he is advised legally that the Clause as it now stands would not prevent the letting of lodgings in the way in which lodgings are ordinarily let, that is to say, a furnished room, with assistance from the housewife to look after the lodger, but it would prevent the sub-letting of a part of the house, two or three rooms, at a considerable increase of rent. Nobody wants that, but I assume that the Minister will kindly state in the House here that the Clause will not prevent what is ordinarily known as taking in a single lodger. That, I think, would have the benefit of increasing housing accommodation in the country, and should he prepared to let the Clause go on those lines.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Clause 3, Sub-section (1, b), of the Bill provides, in effect, that a tenant is not to sub-let his house or any; part of it except with the consent, in writing, of the local authority, etc. This does not prevent the letting of lodgings in the way in which lodgings are usually let in a working-class dwelling. In point of law it is true there is rather a line distinction in what is merely a letting of lodgings, and what is a sub-letting, but it is safe to say, as a general rule, that if the letting of part of the house includes not merely a bare room, but also the use of furniture, or attendance, or one or more meals, as is usually the case where a single man is taken in as a lodger in a worker's house, this is not sub-letting and no consent would be, necessary. On the other hand, if part of the house was let to one or more persons who did for themselves and had an exclusive right to that part., and a key of the front door, this would be a sub-letting and the consent would be necessary. The Bill as it stands, I am advised, preserves this distinction—such as it is—and it is sub-
mitted that it is better to leave it at that. It would be exceedingly difficult to insert any Amendment which would not have the effect of enabling a tenant to farm out the greater part of his house to sub-tenants. The position is that the Bill as it stands does not prevent the letting of lodgings in the ordinary sense, but that any local authority can, if it thinks lit, impose further conditions prohibiting lodgers absolutely. I hope this statement of the position will be accepted.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am quite willing to accept the statement made by the Minister, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel GRETTON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
which consent shall not be given where the tenant in consideration of assigning, subletting, or otherwise parting with the possession of the house or any part thereof receives any premium, rent, or other benefit (other than rent for a part of the house proportionate to the rent paid by the tenant).
This, it seems to me, is one of the conditions which ought to be observed when o consent is given by the local authority to sublet. The matter threatens to be a very great scandal. Everyone here realises that houses which are really subsidised by the State, and the local authority, ought not to be sublet at such rents as are made possible by the subsidy ask the House to agree that the consent of the local authority shall not be given where the tenant, in consideration of the assigning, sub-letting, otherwise parting with the possession of the house or any part of it, receives any premium, rent or other benefit which he should not receive. I am quite sure no one desires that these houses, subject to special conditions, as they are, or will be, should be made a medium for profiteering. Put briefly, that is the object of the Amendment which I put for the approval of the House.

Sir W. LANE-MITCHELL: I beg to second the Amendment. A sub-tenant ought to have a similar benefit to the first, whatever that may be.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I feel sure that the House will give a general approval to the intention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has moved the Amend-
ment, but I think his words are hardly in a form which would enable his intention to be carried into effect. The suggestion we have to snake is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman should withdraw his Amendment, and we would propose, in its place, the words
That in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received, or to be received, by the tenant.
That would meet the consideration of the local authority that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind without tying them down to the rooms to be sublet, or which portion of the house, or the rent.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I quite realise that what my hon. and gallant Friend has said in regard to increased rent, that it would be a difficult matter; but what my hon. and gallant Friend desires now, and I am quite sure the whole House desires, is to prevent anything in the nature of the payment of a premium or key money to be charged in connection with a subsidised house. That ought to be made quite clear. Every tenant who gets one of these houses is a privileged person. He receives an allowance from the State, and the house at a rent that is not the normal and economic value of the house. To allow such a privileged person, receiving such an allowance, to go and let a portion of the house. One or two rooms, say, when he might very well demand a rent disproportionate; because he is getting his house at a lower rate to be allowed to receive a premium of £5 or £10 for subletting would be completely wrong. I realise that the Parliamentary Secretary wants to help my hon. and gallant Friend but I do not think this new Clause goes far enough, and I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman should reconsider the matter with a view to making it quite clear that the acceptance of any premium and the question of the rent should be left to the local authority to take into consideration. The four words, I think, could easily be, worked out between the two Amendments.

Mr. G. SPENCER: As read out the words do not seem to me to be sufficiently clear. I am quite certain of this that whilst the House wants, so far as possible, to get the house for one tenant only, we want, if there is to be sub-letting, to have it under such conditions as will be fair to the parties, and not to allow those who
have the house to impose conditions where the sub-tenant will have three quarters of the rent to pay and receive in return a quarter of the convenience. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman withdraws his Amendment he ought to have some definite assurance that words shall be inserted in the Bill which will make it impossible to profiteer in the way suggested.

Mr. MASTERMAN: For once in a while I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton)—that is, with the spirit, though not the words, of the Amendment. It is quite obvious you cannot put in, in regard to a portion of the house let, the proportion of the rent to be paid in respect to the room or rooms, because some rooms are of more value than others. I think the whole House will agree that the tenants who receive these subsidised houses ought not to make a profit out of letting a part of them which might cover a good deal of the rent. There should be nothing in the nature of key-money or a premium, which I myself, in times gone by, have had to pay in order to get into a miserable block. We do not ask for a form of words. If the hon. Gentleman will accept the spirit of the Debate, so far as it has been a Debate, and will insert some words in another place which will meet the case, we shall be entirely content.

Mr. BLACK: Might I call attention to a point which seems to have been overlooked, and that is the rates. The tenant who receives the house has to pay rates to the local authority in addition to the rent, and those who by sub-letting get possession of the rooms ought to pay a proportion of the rates.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the consent of the local authority is to be obtained before there is sub-letting on the part of the tenant, clearly it would be within the power of that authority to insist upon the terms of the sub-letting. I can assure the House that the question of the drafting of alternative words has occupied quite a long time—words that will carry out the spirit of the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and what everybody desires; words, I think, that should make it an obligation on the part of the local authority to take into account
possible profiteering on behalf of the tenant. I hope the House will give it is these words that I suggest, and if it is found they are not sufficient, an alteration could be made in another place.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The words of the Minister, which are intended to carry out the intention, are
That in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant.
5.0 P.M.
What the House wants to arrive at is to see that no payment in any form of a premium shall be received at all in regard to these subsidised houses. The words in the proposed Amendment presuppose the possibility of a premium or key money. They say that the local authority, while there is to be sub-letting, shall have regard to the rent to be received, and also to any payment which is made by the sub-tenant—which is exactly what we do not want! We want it to be clear in the Act—this question of key money and premiums has been debated many a time before—now that we have the opportunity in the case of 2,500,000 houses, that it shall be laid down definitely in regard to these houses subsidised by the State, that there shall not be this iniquity that has gone on in times past. The proportion of rent and rates, and so forth, is a matter for the local authority to consider. They might quite well consider whether the rate paid for one or two rooms is fair or not, but I want it to be laid down that there shall be no premium paid at all with regard to these sub-lettings. Therefore, I thick it very much better, especially as the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) entirely agrees with me in this matter, that the Minister should consent to reconsider this matter when it goes before another place, and then the Amendment can come down here for consideration. I hope, therefore, the Minister will say that he is prepared to insert an Amendment giving power to the local authority to consider a proper rate, but that there should be no premium whatever.

Mr. MASTERMAN: I would like to reiterate the desire that another form of words may be considered in another place. These words really do not meet the essen-
tial point as to key money and premium, and they do not afford protection against local authorities who may make illicit arrangements with tenants—it is not unknown in some of the smaller local authorities—by which the public interest might be injured. I do not think my right hon. Friend considers it would be difficult to find a form of words which represents the desire of the whole House.

Sir K. WOOD: I should like to support the appeal, and I do so with some confidence, because I know, when my two right hon. Friends generally agree on a matter, the Minister of Health shows considerable accession to reasonability, and I think there is now some prospect that he will tell us he will reconsider this matter, and put it right in another place.

Colonel GRETTON: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the form of words proposed by the Minister is quite unacceptable, and does not deal with the case. The words are vague, and give no definite direction as to what is to be done. I am not greatly in love with the particular form of words standing on the Paper, but it is a little unfortunate that the Government should not have had some consultation at an earlier stage with regard to another form of words that would be acceptable to them. The House is now in a dilemma in this respect. Clearly we cannot draft an Amendment of this kind on the Floor of the House, and, as the general sense of the House is strongly in favour of an Amendment, if the Minister will deal with it in another place, it entirely meets my ease, as I have a great respect for the other place. I, therefore, ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert the words
that in giving or withholding such consent regard shall he had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant.
I am in the hands of the House in this matter, but I might suggest it would be wise to put in something now even if it did not go quite so far as the House intended. In that case, I move this on the understanding that in another place it is suitably amended in the sense desired by the House.

Mr. FALCONER: I would very much prefer not to have these words in, because I think, for the purpose expressed in ail quarters of the House, it is better to have a Bill without these words, and leave entirely to the local authorities the power to say whether or not there shall be any consideration of that kind, and if so how much. If the words proposed by the Minister go into the Bill, it conveys to my mind a recognition of the payment of key money, and that it was a proper thing for the local authorities to consider. I suggest, with all respect, that the Bill should be left without the words suggested, so that if, unfortunately, suitable words are not found, at any rate we shall leave the discretion of local authorities unfettered.

Mr. GREENWOOD: In view of the opinion of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I do want it made perfectly clear that the Government will make an effort to find suitable words to carry out the wish of the House.

Mr. WHEATLEY: indicated assent.

Sir R. KAY: Many of these arrangements, we know, are made in secret, and what has occurred to me is this: What will happen if the local authority, having given their consent, discover at a later date that key money or premium money has been paid? Could the Minister see that provision is made whereby the local authority may have some power to re-establish their authority, and get back possession of the house?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, after the word "authority," to insert the words "desire to."
This is an Amendment to make the Clause read. There are conditions later on in the paragraph which make it necessary to pat in these words, in order that the latter part of the paragraph shall read with the early part.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, lines 23 and 24, leave out the word "completed," and insert instead thereof the word "effected."—[Mr. A. Greenwood.]

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out from the word "the" to end of the paragraph, and to insert instead thereof the words
equivalent of the contribution already paid in respect of any house sold before the expiration of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable, together with the contribution for the term stipulated, shall be as nearly as possible the equivalent of the contribution which would have been payable for twenty years if the house had not been subject to special conditions.
This Amendment is really an alternative to the following one, which is to be proposed by the Minister. I have put down my Amendment, because it does not seem to me that the words suggested by the Minister meet the particular point that I raised in Committee on the Bill when we were dealing with this Clause. The object of the particular paragraph in this Clause is to permit of the sale of houses, subject to special conditions, to the occupiers of the houses for their own occupation. That is, of course, a very laudable object, but it is only likely to be carried out if we take care that you shall not provide circumstances in which the owner of the house will be tempted to sell the house to somebody else, and thereby make a profit. While the Minister's words are calculated to provide that the local authority, or the purchaser of the house, should be no worse off than if he purchased the house under the conditions proposed by the Act of last year, it did not seem to me it met the point I wanted to make, namely, that they should be no better off, because if the local authority is going to get some advantage in the sale of a house which it can pass on to the purchaser, that purchaser would be buying this house at a lower price than he could buy a house built under the Act of last year. The result would be that he could sell the house again, and put the difference in his own pocket. I desire that that should not be permissible or possible under this Bill, because if it were, you would have a traffic in these houses which would quite contravene the purpose of the Minister's Amendment, and I do not think would be at all a desirable thing.
All that the Minister's Amendment, provides is that the contribution is not in any case to be reduced below £6 for 20 years, but I have in mind the case where
the house had already been the subject of the contribution at the higher rate, for several years—it might be three or four—and then was sold. In that case, the local authority would, of course, have received, not £6, but £9 in respect of the house, and I desire that that should he taken into account in reducing the contribution for the remainder of the 20 years, and that the contribution, therefore, should not be reduced merely to £6, but to something less than £6, in order to take away the advantage the authority had got, by reason of having received the larger subsidy during the period it let the house. I daresay the Minister will say that the local authority had been letting the house subject to the special conditions, but I want to be quite certain that the conditions under which the house has been let are sufficiently onerous to have counterbalanced the extra subsidy received from the Exchequer. There will be a considerable temptation to the local authority to sell these houses. If they can sell one of these houses, they are going to relieve themselves of the liability to find £4 10s. per year for the remainder of the 40 years, and also relieve themselves from any further liability which might fall upon them in respect of the house because if the costs of management or of maintenance of the house go up, it is true the Minister provides that the rent is to go up proportionately. But, I think he must himself be aware, there will be very small chance for the local authority to get an increased rent, and therefore, if there were a loss, it would probably fall upon the rates, and the local authority, in fact, would get rid of all the trouble and difficulty, which local authorities do continually experience in managing houses, the occupants of which are local electors, who can, and do, put pressure upon their local representatives upon the council.
So I say they have a very great temptation to get rid of these houses, and it is conceivable, even supposing my Amendment were carried, even supposing the contribution were so reduced as to put the local authority in just the same position as regards these houses as it would be under the Act of last year, it might pay them actually to take a lower price for these houses, in order to get rid of the liability which otherwise would
fall upon them. I want to encourage owner-occupiership all I can, but I do not want to encourage a continual transference of these houses from one private owner to another, each one making a profit, and that profit being a profit which has been earned at the expense of the general taxpayer. I think it is very necessary to protect his interests, and, for that reason, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have considered this Amendment very carefully this forenoon, and I do not think there is much in substance between the object which my right hon. Friend has in view and my own. I am advised that, if I accept this Amendment, the local authority might he able to show that it was worse treated than if the houses were houses that were not subject to special conditions. It is rather difficult to explain how that possibility comes about, but on calculation it is found that it might very well be discovered that the amount they had in hand out of the £9 they had been receiving in subsidy would not meet the difference between that and the sum of £6 a year for the unexpired period from the date of the sale, and therefore some small sum is necessary to represent that difference. Therefore, in the interest of the locality, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am afraid the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has just given is not very clear.

Mr. VIVIAN: Your Amendment is not very clear.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give me this assurance. Seeing that his proposal does not impose any duty to reduce the contribution, will he exercise his powers so as to make the reduction until he is satisfied that the local authority is no better off by selling the house than it would be if the house was sold under the Act of last year.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I have no difficulty at all in giving that assurance.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: With that assurance, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 35, leave out from the word "reduced" to the end of line 37, and insert instead thereof the words
by more than three pounds or, in the case of a house in an agricultural parish, by more than six pounds ten shillings, and the duration thereof shall not be curtailed by more than twenty years.

In page 5, line 29, after the word "that," insert the words "subject to the following conditions."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, lines 29 and 30, leave out the words "either be occupied by the owners or," and insert instead thereof the word "be."
The series of Amendments on the Paper standing in the name of the Minister of Health are all Amendments to the special conditions applicable to houses provided by public utility societies and private enterprise. In Committee we accepted an Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Reading (Dr. Somerville Hastings) and it has been found necessary, in order to carry out the spirit of that Amendment, to make the alterations suggested by this series of Amendments. It will be found when they have been put into the Bill that the provisions of the paragraph inserted in the second part of Clause 1 will be in harmony with the paragraph in the first part of Clause 3

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 30, leave out the words "by the owners," and insert instead thereof the words "for occupation."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Amendment proposed: in page 5, line 40, after the word "houses," to insert the words
and that in giving or withholding such consent regard shall be had to any payment or other consideration received or to be received by the tenant."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: We seem now to be getting back to the same point. This Amendment pre-supposes that some payment may be received by the tenant. I suggest that the Government should not press this Amendment, and if any words are necessary on this point, the matter should be dealt with in another place.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 40, leave out from the word "houses" to the end of line 41.—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I bog to move, in page 5, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
(c) that no premium, fine, or other payment of any kind whatsoever, direct or indirect, other than rent, shall be taken in respect of the letting of any house.
The purpose is to add another condition with regard to houses provided by public utility companies, and it is a condition which does not apply to houses provided by the local authority. The primary purpose of this Amendment is to prevent owners of houses complying with the regulations with regard to the lower rent, but obtaining the equivalent of higher rents by some form of premium or fine.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: I see that some words have been added which are not on the Amendment Paper. It is a good thing the Government thought of adding those words "other than rent," otherwise the Amendment would have precluded any payment.

Mr. VIVIAN: This is an Amendment dealing with the taking of a premium, fine or payment of any kind whatsoever, and that applies to public utility societies. Those societies are based on the principles that practically every tenant shall make some other payment besides rent, and consequently they are continually making other payments besides the rent.

Colonel GRETTON: This is a good illustration of the difficulty we get into when Amendments are proposed without consultation with those hon. Members who are conversant with the particular branch of the subject with which the Amendment is intended to deal. The case before the House is one dealing with sub-letting. I do not think that that object will be carried out by this Amendment unless some words are included to cover contribution to sinking fund, which would obviously be a proper contribution, whether it be actually in the form of rent or in the form of a charge made by the society to the original tenant. We are certainly in some doubt on the matter, and I do not
think we are quite justified in entrusting this case without a moment's notice to the Law Officers of the Crown. A great many people will be affected, and no one wants to come to a rapid and hasty decision without due consideration of the consequences of these words if they are inserted. I shall not, however, oppose the insertion of these words if the Government will, as in the case of a previous Amendment, undertake to consider the whole matter very carefully and, if necessary, insert Amendments in another place. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us such an undertaking.

Mr. G. SPENCER: The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) himself moved an Amendment very closely resembling the present one, and had the Government accepted the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Amendment I feel certain that it would have gone a long way to meet the desire of the House. I am rather surprised at what has been said by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), because this Clause has to do with the letting of the house. It has nothing to do with the purchase of the house, either by instalments or in any other way.

Mr. VIVIAN: Many public utility societies are not based on the selling of houses at all. It is a joint ownership by the whole of the tenants, or it may be by a guild, and the occupiers have no intention of purchasing the houses at all. They say, "These houses are ours," but no one will ever be able to say, "This house is mine." It is a condition of the tenancy that there should be some payment, weekly, monthly or yearly, towards the capital or for other purposes, but under this provision they would not be allowed to take payments of any kind whatsoever.

Mr. SPENCER: It does not say so. It is only in respect of letting. The extra payment that is made is not in respect of letting, but in respect of some other conditions of the company or guild.

Mr. VIVIAN: In a number of these cases the payments towards capital form part of the tenancy agreement. That may be desirable or undesirable, but they form part of the tenancy agreement, and they go side by side with the payments for rent.

Mr. SPENCER: What we are dealing with is purely a question of letting, and, although I am not a lawyer, I am certain that, taken in conjunction with the other Amendments with which we dealt a short time ago, this is a desirable Amendment to protect both the local authority and the sub-tenant against extra payments to a tenant who wants to sublet the house and get the full rent for it.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I feel the greatest doubt as to what we are really doing if these words are inserted, and I hope the Minister and the Attorney-General will consider this matter, because it is most undesirable I hat the Bill when it leaves Parliament should be in such a form that there is any doubt as to the intention of Parliament. The object of the words which it is proposed to insert is, I understand, to prevent anything in the nature of profiteering, but the condition which these words lay down is one of the conditions which are part of the undertaking as between the public utility society and the Minister. It is a condition of the contribution which the Minister is to make to the public utility society. As soon as the public utility society has complied with its conditions, the Minister has to make his contribution. Supposing that them is a subletting, which can only be with the consent of the Minister, the question of the rent which is to be charged will have passed out of the power of the public utility society, and will then be in the hands of a person who is not bound by this particular condition which is being inserted, because, to use a legal phrase, there is no privity of contract except between the public utility society and the Minister. Therefore, these words, which it is proposed to acid, with the intention, as I understand, of meeting the desire of the House to prevent profiteering by the tenant subletting, will be—I speak subject to correction—entirely useless for the purpose as soon as the Louse has passed out of the control of the public utility society by permission being given to sublet, and you will have the same round of profiteering, because these new words, if inserted, will not bind the sub-tenant.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: This Amendment does not really deal with the question of sub-tenants. It deals with the case of a public utility society or
company that gets public assistance and lets its houses at a certain rent, but takes from the tenants some extra payment by way of premium in some form or other. It is not intended really to deal with the question of subletting, which, it is suggested, should be dealt with separately. We have given au undertaking that, if the question of subletting is not effectively dealt with, we will do our best to put it right in another place. I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian) is right in his contention. These words were very carefully considered, but, if we find, now that the point has been raised in this specific way, that these words do not carry out what is actually the intention of this House, we will take steps to have the necessary Amendments made during the passage of the Bill through another place.

Mr. CLARRY: I should like to call the attention of the House to paragraph (e) of Sub-section (2), because it seems to me that it would be better to insert this reservation there. It is there provided
that the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the rents which could be charged by the local authority had the houses been provided by the local authority themselves.
It would appear to me that these words might be more conveniently inserted there for the purpose of preventing profiteering, and also to provide for any charges that may be made by the building society itself for repayment of capital or interest cm the sum advanced for building the house. These two points could, apparently, be quite conveniently provided for at that point without the insertion of this present Amendment, which is almost a repetition of the existing words of the Clause.

Lord E. PERCY: I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I am not at all sure that the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Vivian), the Government, and we on this side of the House, are not entirely at cross purposes in relation to this matter of public utility societies. The Parliamentary Secretary has just said that it is the intention of the Government to allow public utility societies to charge an additional sum in respect of sinking fund, which will eventually make the occupant of the house the owner. That, says the Parliamentary Secretary, is the intention of the Government.
They have carefully provided—and he says that the words have been carefully considered—by this new Amendment, that nothing except rent may pass in respect of the letting of a house, and they have carefully provided, by another Amendment which they are about to move in paragraph (e), that no rent shall be charged except it be the appropriate normal rent. Therefore, the sinking fund clearly cannot pass either way, either as rent or as anything else but rent. What, makes me afraid that our whole effort to obtain from the Government recognition of the public utility societies is going to be in vain is this: The hon. Member for Totnes knows more about this than I do, but the object of having a sinking fund payment by the occupant of a house rented from a public utility society is that the title of the house shall pass, and, generally speaking, the title of the house, in the ease of most public utility societies, does pass before the expiration of 40 years.

Mr. VIVIAN: They work on various systems. Some societies have no intention whatever of parting with any of their property, and all that the investor does is to acquire the capital value. In some cases he never acquires the ownership of the house, but, supposing the house to be worth £500, he acquires £500 of 5 per cent. stock, or shares, or whatever it may be. Other societies proceed, as has been indicated, by way of sale by various methods.

Lord E. PERCY: The wording of paragraph (b) is so wide that I am not sure that, at the end of the term of sinking fund payments, whatever the arrangement may be—whether it be a passing of the title or merely the wiping out of the capital charge—I am not at all sure that the occupier of the house can acquire any right without the consent of the Minister, and I am not at all sure that the whole of these provisions as to public utility societies are not going to become nugatory, because I do not think that this series of conditions will really carry out what it is necessary to carry out. I should like to have an assurance from the Government that they will very carefully consider the matter from that point of view, for the purpose of amendment in another place.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I think there is considerable substance in the points which have been raised, and they deserve very careful attention. I can assure the House that they will receive careful consideration in order that the matter may be made quite plain.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out the words "the owner," and insert instead thereof the words "no house."
This and three other Amendments which stand on the Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister are little more than drafting Amendments, designed to avoid the use of the word "owner," for the reasons which I have already indicated on another Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, to leave out the words "shall not," and to insert instead thereof the words "desires to."
The object of this Amendment and of two further Amendments which stand in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Greene), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton), and myself, is to assimilate paragraph (c) of Sub-section (2) exactly to paragraph (c) of Subsection (1). I understood from the Parliamentary Secretary that it was the Government's intention to make the two sets of conditions almost exactly alike.

Mr. MASTERMAN: On a point of Order. I do not see how the Noble Lord can achieve his object with the words we have passed. A house cannot desire to do anything at all. It will be necessary to alter the Amendment slightly.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: We are getting into a terrible tangle. The word "owner" is left out, and it does not read.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in page. 5, line 42, to leave out the words "not sell," and to insert instead thereof the words "be sold."

Lord E. PERCY: The Government, having said they wanted these two sets
of conditions to be analogous, are now amending paragraph (c) to make it read entirely different from paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1). We carefully provided in Committee that the power of the Minister to refuse leave to sell or dispose of a house should be limited and that the local authority should have the power to sell subject to any conditions the Minister might think proper. Why are the Government not adopting the same phraseology in this paragraph? Why are we making a difference? We ought to try to make the two paragraphs read exactly the same.

Mr. MASTERMAN: Have we not to get in the three Amendments proposed by the Government before we come to the Noble Lord's Amendment?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord was right in raising his point here. I rather think he would be cut out by the three Government Amendments, the first of which is now under consideration.

Mr. MASTERMAN: If we accept the Noble Lord's Amendment, the second Government Amendment will not read.

Lord E. PERCY: I am merely discussing the Minister's Amendment was asking the Government for an explanation.

Mr. GREENWOOD: We have in this paragraph (c) really carried nut our intention to put public utility societies and other companies on the same footing as local authorities. With the subsequent Amendments it will read:
No house shall be sold or (save by such lettings as aforesaid) otherwise disposed of except with the consent of the Minister.
It is necessary here to put in those words "except with the consent of the Minister," because under the Act of 1919 local authorities, to sell their houses, must get the consent of the Minister, and without these words we should be putting private enterprise in a more advantageous position than the local authority. The way we have drafted the Clause is to avoid the use of the term "owner," to which legal objection is taken, and to bring in the consent of the Minister as regards public utility societies, which was not necessary in the first part because, under the existing law as regards local authorities, they must ask the consent of the Minister before they dispose of houses.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 43, leave out the word "dispose," and insert instead thereof the word "disposed."

In page 5, lines 43 and 44, leave out the words "the houses."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 6, line 7, at the end, to insert the words but so nevertheless that the equivalent of the contribution already paid in respect of any house sold before the expiration of twenty years from the date when that contribution first became payable, together with the contribution for the term stipulated, shall be as nearly as possible the equivalent of the contribution which would have been payable for twenty years if the house had not been subject to special conditions.
This is an insertion which gives to the public utility societies the same assurance as to the reduction in contribution as has been given to the local authority. I have drafted this on the assumption that my right hon. Friend's, the Member for Ladywood, Amendment, to leave out paragraph (c), would be adopted. I move it formally in order to get an assurance from the Government that they will put in at the end of paragraph (c) the wards that the Minister has now put in at the end of paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1).

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: The Noble Lord is right. We have inserted words in Sub-section (1), and, clearly, words of similar effect should be inserted in Subsection (2). I will move words to put the public utility societies' house in the same position as the local authority's house.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 7, at, the end, insert the words
but so nevertheless that the contribution in respect of any house sold before the expiration of the period of 20 years from the date when that contribution first became payable shall not be reduced by more than £3, or in the, case of a house in an agricultural parish by more than £6 10s., and the duration thereof shall not he curtailed by more than 20 years."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 8, to leave out from the word "Clause" to the word "resolution" in line 10, and to insert instead thereof the words
which complies with the requirements of any.
This and the immediately following Amendments are moved in order to bring
the second part of Clause 3 into conformity with Clause 1. It does net in any way alter the meaning of the Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 11, after the word "Commons," insert the words
applicable to contracts of Government Departments and for the time being in force."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Mr. GREENWOOD: I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, to leave out paragraph (e), and to insert instead thereof the words
(e) that the rent charged in respect of any house shall not exceed the appropriate normal rent together with a sum equivalent to the average excess, if any, above the appropriate normal rent which may be charged by the local authority in accordance with this Section in the case of houses provided by the local authorities themselves.
The words as they originally appeared did not seem to carry out our meaning, and the purpose of the Amendment is to lay down the rent which may be charged by public utility societies, companies and other bodies, as the appropriate normal rent, plus such average excess as there might be to bring the rents into line with the rents that would have been charged had they been local authority houses.

Mr. N. CHAMBERLAIN: It is certainly rather difficult for the House to follow the constant changes in the wording of the Clauses, and I am not quite sure that I have appreciated the exact effect of the words the hon. Gentleman now desires to insert. We have one form of words as printed in the Bill as it came from the Committee. It is proposed to alter that, and I fully appreciate that the words he proposed to put in would not really meet the case, because any increase of cost, for instance, could not be reflected in the case of the public Utility societies in increased rent, as it would be in the case of the local authorities, if these words had been inserted. Is there any difference between the words he now suggests and the words in the Bill, and, if so, what is it?

Mr. WHEATLEY: I think the difference is this, that the local authority would be dealing with the whole area, and taking the rents in the aggregate. We are contemplating here a case of a company putting up a few houses in an area. As
the words stood in the Bill, the rents which were charged by the local authority might be difficult to ascertain and define, because a local authority is entitled to charge different rents in different areas of its district, and it is to get over that difficulty, and to make it more concise, and to enable us to deal with a few houses in the locality that we propose to insert these new words. They do not alter at all what is the intention of the paragraph, but they make it easier of administration.

6.0 P.M.

Sir T. INSKIP: I must express misgiving about the way in which we are gradually building up this Bill. We cannot do anything, but I am not content to be a silent spectator of the production of legislation in this way. The paragraph, with this Amendment, says
the rents charged in respect of the houses shall not exceed the appropriate normal rent.
That is simply gibberish. "Appropriate normal rent" means absolutely nothing unless some words are put in the Bill by which to judge the standard of "appropriate normal rent." Where the expression "appropriate normal rent" is used on page 5, it is qualified by the words
charged in respect of working-class houses.
In this paragraph (e) the words, "appropriate normal rent " are inserted without any words of qualification which suggest what "appropriate normal rent" means, as if "appropriate normal rent " were words of art or words which bear some technical meaning which everybody who will have to construe the Statute will understand. What on earth it means without reference to any standard by which you can judge what appropriateness means, I am at a loss to understand We are putting in words by this Amendment which convey some idea, which is no doubt an excellent idea, in the mind of the Minister, but it is not the proper way to produce legislation, and I regret that we are driven to building up legislation in this haphazard way.

Mr. MASTERMAN: The hon. and learned Member's remarks are not a criticism of this Clause but of the Bill.

Sir T. INSKIP: They are a criticism of this Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN: "Appropriate normal rent" are words which occur at intervals throughout the whole Bill. All that this Amendment is doing is putting the Clause into conformity with the rest of the Bill. If the rest of the Bill can be described as lunacy, then this Clause is lunacy. There is no reason why it should not be brought into conformity with the remainder of the Bill.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not appreciated my hon. and learned Friend's objection. The objection is that "appropriate normal rent," as defined in Sub-section (3), as
the rent that is normally charged in the area of the local authority in the case of working-class houses.
How does that apply to public utility societies? Is the "appropriate normal rent" to be determined by the area of the local authority in which the particular house is situated? It does not say so. Perhaps the Attorney-General will admit that the way in which Sub-section (3) is worded was appropriate only so long as you had one set of conditions, and it was the local authority in every case which was going to fix the "appropriate normal rent." It does not read properly in relation to the "appropriate normal rent" charged by a public utility society. How in the name of justice and reason are you to allow local authorities to average an "appropriate normal rent" over all the houses and not allow a public utility society, such as the Tudor Walters scheme in the Doncaster area, to do the same? Why should one be allowed to average and not the other? It is not as if the public utility societies owned a few houses in every case and the local authority owned the most houses in every case. There are public utility societies which have very much bigger schemes than the majority of local authorities. Surely, it is not necessary to make this very unfair discrimination.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Hon. Members may remember that a question was put to the Minister on the previous Clause as to points which might arise in the case of public utility societies, and that is to be considered. It is conceivable that questions may arise as to the meaning of "appropriate normal rent"
in connection with these societies. If so, that may well be considered at the same time.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Termination of Government liability to make contributions.)

Mr. FRANKLIN: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, after the word "prices" to insert the words
or for the obtaining of funds at reasonable rates of interest to finance the provision or acquisition of houses.
In moving this Amendment, I will say something as to the bearing of the cost of money upon the whole scheme. I will not go into the whole question which was dealt with the other night, and which received sympathetic consideration from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The only allusion I would make to the, figures I gave on that occasion is to call attention once more to the fact that every quarter per cent. variation in the rate of money means 6d. per week on the rent of the house. When we take that into consideration I think we shall be able to deal with this question with somewhat better knowledge. In paragraph (a) it will be noticed that if for the reason of there being a shortage in labour and difficulties in regard to materials the local authority holds its hand, it would be within the province of the Minister to withhold the subsidy, that is to say, for the time being to stop the work. What is far more important than labour and materials is the question of finance. On that depends the whole success or non-success of the Bill. At the end of the paragraph there is a general proviso in these words
or arises from any other cause whatsoever.
Those words may be said to cover the financial aspect, but when you have two major reasons given, the question of labour and the question of material, not to insert the question of finance is somewhat unfair to those who are striving, and should be made to strive, to keep down the cost of money. If the local authority finds that the rate for money lushes up as in 1919–20 and that the rents they will be obliged to charge would go up very considerably, that is a reason for the local authority holding their hands.
A further point is this. There will be far more readiness to lend money if the idea does not get abroad that a person
will get a higher rate of interest by waiting to provide the funds necessary to carry out the housing scheme. My Amendment definitely says, first of all, to the investor, "You are not going to get a higher rate of interest than this, because at a certain point we shall be obliged to suspend building." The Amendment would also induce them to stretch a point and to help in the scheme by supplying money at the cheapest possible rate. It is, therefore, a warning to the local authorities not to go beyond a certain point in bidding for money, and it is a notice to those who will have to supply the money that they will not be injured by the constant rise in the rates due to this competition, because beyond a certain point the local authorities cannot pay.

Sir JOHN PENNEFATHER: I beg to second this most important Amendment. I would, naturally, have preferred the Amendment which I had put down, but as this Amendment has been selected I cordially support it. Although it may not go quite as far as I would like to go, it goes a considerable way, and as far as it goes I am in thorough agreement with it. The meaning of the two Amendments is very much the same. This Amendment makes it clear that those who lend money, whether it be a few pounds or whether it be hundreds or thousands, to enable houses to be built, are not useless people, but are very essential to the success of this scheme and without their assistance the houses cannot be built any more than they could be built without land, materials and labour. Therefore, it is highly appropriate that this Amendment should appear in the Bill.
Some people may raise objections to the power which is to be placed in the hands of the Minister by this Amendment which gives him the right to say what are reasonable rates of interest. I am not afraid of that, because I do not believe that any of the public bodies or local authorities could float a loan that was unreasonable at the time it was raised, and I am sure that none will attempt to do so. If they did attempt to do so, it would be right that the Minister should have it in his power to say, "No. This is unreasonable. This will unduly raise the cost of the houses and in that way will unduly and unfairly increase the rents. Therefore, I
think the Minister should have this power. The insertion of this Amendment will do much to remove any misapprehensions or misunderstandings which have been created by the somewhat thoughtless and injudicious announcements which have been made either in this House or outside this House in speeches or interviews. I dealt with that matter last Thursday night, and I will not pursue the subject now, because it is well that all that should be buried.
The acceptance of this Amendment will help to create a better borrowing atmosphere for the local authorities and public bodies. One hon. Member opposite laughs when I speak of a better borrowing atmosphere. I mean such an atmosphere that all wise people strive to create when they are going to try to borrow large sums of money at a cheap rate. That is a favourable borrowing atmosphere. The opposite would be a favourable lending atmosphere. It is essential that the people of this country should feel that in lending money for this purpose they are doing something that is meritorious. It is essential that that atmosphere should be created. Unless it is created, people will say, "Why should I lend money for this purpose and run the risk of being pointed at as an unworthy person, when I can lend my money equally well and at perhaps a higher rate of interest on something abroad, and be hailed as a patriot?" The favourable atmosphere foe local authorities which I would like to create is that in which it is agreed on all sides that the local authority is doing right in trying to raise money, and that the people who respond to its appeal are doing right in subscribing to those loans, and that by the united action of the local authority who, borrow and those who lend houses, which are so much wanted in the country to-day, may be provided. It is for the success of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme that. I hope he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I propose to accept the Amendment, with the omission of the words "or acquisition," which are not necessary.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I should have liked the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment, who have evidently given considerable attention to it, to be able to advise
the Minister as to how something more than a favourable atmosphere could be created. If the Minister could have been informed as to how the cheaper money could be got it would have been of much greater service to the State than merely proposing that there should be a favourable atmosphere. Some of us on these benches have gone further than attempting to secure a favourable atmosphere. We have been able to secure cheaper money, and, by means of municipal banks, we have secured cheaper money for local authorities, and we have always felt, with a few honourable exceptions, such as the late Minister of Health the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain), that the great majority of hon. Gentlemen opposite and on the benches below the Gangway have done nothing whatever to facilitate municipal banking, but indeed often opposed it—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I can give a few facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am sorry that I was going to be led astray by unworthy interruptions, but cheaper money can be got. The working classes to-day, who put their money in the Post Office or other trustee savings bank, only get 2½ per cent. interest for their money. Allowing ¼ per cent. for working expenses, the State gets the money for 2¾ per cent. All through the War the working class investors never got more than this 2½ per cent., while the rich investors were getting 5 and 6 per cent. To the extent of slightly less than £300,000,000 the State gets the money at 2¾ per cent. If the local authorities were given facilities to start municipal banks, offering 2¾ per cent.—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot, on this Amendment, enter into a large question of that kind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I will not discuss the matter in detail. I merely content myself with suggesting to hon. Members who support this Amendment—and I think it right—with the wish to provide cheap money to facilitate house building in this country, that they could perform no greater service than by assisting Members on these benches to secure for local authorities the wider privilege of starting municipal banks.

Major BURNIE: I sympathise with the desire of the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment that we should have cheaper
money for the erection of houses, but I am rather surprised that the Minister has accepted the Amendment so cheerfully, because I have a feeling that this small Amendment will not assist him in the main object of the Bill, which is to obtain houses. The Amendment gives the Minister further powers to declare that he will make no contribution. The operative words are
If the deficiency is due to the absence of adequate arrangements for the necessary increase in the supply of labour,
and so on, and with the Amendment you will have the added reason or for the deficiency of adequate arrangements for the obtaining of funds at reasonable rates of interest for the provision of houses.
The adequate arrangements have to be made by the local authorities or the public utility societies, and this Amendment places very great powers in the hands of the Ministry, because the question of whether the arrangements are adequate or not, to my mind, should be left to the councils concerned. They are the people who have to raise the money and have to build the houses and find the supply of labour and material, and we should not throw further obstacles in their path by creating the feeling that if the arrangements are not satisfactory to the Minister they are liable to have the contributions to these houses stopped by the Minister. By doing this we are throwing further obstacles in the way of providing the houses, which is the main object of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Johnston) asks how cheaper money can he got. The answer is very simple. By good credit. The City of Liverpool, which adjoins my borough, borrows money at the absurd rate of 2½ or 3 per cent. It borrows on six months' bills and renews them. It's credit is good. It is the soundest credit in Great Britain. My only regret is that, although we prefer to be independent of it, we do not share in that credit, and our charge for housing, when we take into account the cost of raising the money, which, of course, is charged, is nearly 7½ per cent. I think that hon. Members are going to defeat the object which they have in view. They are going to create the idea in the mind of the local authorities, who have to raise the money, that they may be refused the contribution by the Minister
towards the housing scheme which they propose to carry out.

Lord E. PERCY: I am in favour of this Amendment, not that it makes very much difference as long as we have the words
or arises horn any other cause whatsoever.
But I would point out to the Minister that this is the first time that we have in so many words the statement that if local authorities, by direction of the Minister, do not order the houses before they can get the money more cheaply, then if, as a result of that, the building industry does not deliver the houses, the contributions may be cut off, through no fault of the building industry. Was that the intention of the so-called agreement with the right hon. Gentleman? There is this second point. It was specifically said that the Minister may not shut the scheme down, except for causes which are within the control of the building industry, but now, under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (2), he may shut down the scheme for causes which are outside the control of the building industry. I am left wondering snore and more what will happen to the so-called guarantee and what is left of it.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am sure that the Noble Lord does not require me to enlighten him on that point. He knows perfectly well that from the beginning of the discussion on this Bill, and during the discussions with the building industry, it was made clear that the State would not accept houses unless they could be obtained at a reasonable cost, and he knows also that, if the price of money soars, that more than anything else affects the cost of houses, and he recognises also that this power is merely permissive and could not be carried into effect unless it was felt that it was the proper thing to do so.

Amendment made to proposed Amendment: Leave out the words "or acquisition."—[Mr. Wheatley.]

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
other than a house which is completed not later than eight months after the specified date in respect of which the Minister or
Board is satisfied that the failure to complete the house before the specified date was due to circumstances over which the local authority, person, or body constructing the house had no control.
Under Sub-section (3) of Clause 4 the Minister shall not be liable to make contributions in respect of houses which have not been completed before the date specified in the order. It must be obvious that there may be cases in which an order is made and in which the local authorities or the public utility society building the houses could not put them up in time. The only object of the Amendment is, that if it should be established that the failure to complete a house on that specified date is occasioned by conditions which are beyond the control of the local authority or the public utility society, the Minister shall have power to say that he shall still remain responsible to pay.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Revision of contributions.)

Mr. E. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 25, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
The Clause to which this refers is a Clause embodying an agreement or understanding between the Minister and the local authorities that if the £9 for 40 years is reduced the £4 10s. which the local authorities pay shall be reduced or varied in proportion. That is a definite understanding, and on behalf of the local authorities it is suggested that the understanding would be better carried out if the word "shall" were introduced instead of "may."

Mr. T. THOMSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I do not think that the alteration is necessary, but if there is some doubt about it, there can be no doubt about the understanding I had with the local authorities, and I therefore accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Extension of provisions of 13 and 14 Geo. 5, c. 24, s. 3, where local authority fails to take action.)

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 8, line 41, to leave out the words "the Minister certifies that."
I desire by this and a subsequent Amendment to take away the discretion which the Minister at present has, under Clause 7, to certify whether a local authority has or has not failed to take the necessary steps to promote by private enterprise the construction of houses under the 1923 Act or this Act. I want it to be a question of fact, so that if a local authority has failed, if it is clear that it is not going to carry out the Act, it shall be an obligation on the Minister to certify to that effect, and thereupon the person in the area of the local authority shall be able to come to the Minister as under the 1923 Act.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I cannot accept this Amendment. If I did so, I am afraid that I should destroy the whole purpose of this provision. It is clear that someone must judge whether or not the local authority does its duty. Who is to judge? Certainly not the local authority; certainly not the person appealing against the local authority. The only other person I know of is the Minister.

Lord E. PERCY: I am leaving it to the Minister to decide whether the local authority has failed, but I am saying that if the local authority has failed, he shall issue a certificate. As the Clause now stands, the Minister may judge if the local authority has failed There is no obligation on the Minister, however satisfied he may be, that the local authority has failed.

Mr. WHEATLEY: We may be dealing here with large sums of money, and we cannot simply say that the Minister shall issue a certificate that Wiltshire has been in default, and that, therefore, everyone who has a claim against Wiltshire will get £ for 20 years, or whatever it be. In the name of capable administration, the Clause should be left as it is.

Mr. WILLISON: The matter, is not as simple as the Noble Lord suggests. I am glad to hear that the Minister intends to stick to the words of the Clause. On first looking at the Clause I thought that the words which the Noble Lord seeks to omit were unnecessary, but on closer examination I came to the conclusion that if the Clause is to be accepted, it is necessary for the words to remain in. If there be one person more than another whom we want to encourage it is the person who builds his own house, and
solves his own housing difficulty. If the Amendment were carried, such a person's position would be an extremely difficult one. The Clause helps him to make an application straightaway to the Minister, and immediately he obtains a certificate, he is fully protected.

Earl WINTERTON: The last speaker is quite wrong in thinking that my Noble Friend who moved this Amendment has any hostility to the person who builds his own house. The whole question at issue is whether this Clause, as it is printed, strengthens the position of the private individual, or whether his position would not be strengthened if the words of this Amendment and of a subsequent Amendment were omitted. The subsequent Amendment would compel the Minister to issue a certificate. I have not sufficient knowledge of the question to judge between my Noble Friend and the Minister, but what my Noble Friend has in mind is that it might be held by a subsequent Minister of Health that where a local authority has allowed the building of one or two houses in a locality, that authority has taken the necessary steps to promote the construction of houses. His suggestion is that the Clause, as it stands, would make it harder for a private individual to obtain a certificate from the Minister where the local authority has failed to do its duty, than would the Clause with the suggested words left out. If the Amendment were carried, all that the private individual would have to do would be to ask the Minister for the subsidy on the ground that the local authority had failed to carry out the Act. The House must judge whether the view of the Minister or that of my Noble Friend is in the best interests of the private person who builds his own house.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Scotland.)

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
and the reference to Section eight of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc., Act, 1919, shall be construed as a reference to Section six of the Housing, Town Planning, Etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919.
This Amendment is consequential upon a new Clause accepted by the Minister
in Committee. It simply gives a Scottish equivalent for the Section in the Act of 1919.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment standing in the name of the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl)—in page 11, line 11, after the word "be" to insert the words
Provided that in computing the proportion of agricultural land in a rural area the valuation of sporting rents shall be included as part of the value of agricultural land, but railroads, water or electrical works and undertakings, or institutions erected for the public service and conferring no special advantage on the parish concerned, shall not be included in the total valuation of the rural area for the purposes of these provisions"—
cannot be taken at this stage. It would involve an additional charge.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 3, line 8, and Clause 13, page 11, line 7, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Wheatley as Amendments to be moved on re-committal.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words "the Amendments to."
The result of my Amendment would be that, instead of recommitting the Bill in respect of three specific Amendments, the Bill would be recommitted in respect of Clauses 2 and 13, and that would enable Amendments in the names of some of my hon. Friends and in the name of hon. Members opposite to be debated. Mr. Speaker has ruled that those Amendments are out of. Order at the present stage and that they can be moved only if the Bill is recommitted. It would be unfair to the House, and to those who wish to move the Amendments if we were to accept the Minister's Motion and recommit the Bill only in respect of one minor point, though, as to the desirability of his Amendment on that minor point I agree with him. I think I am entitled to tell the House the points of the Amendments which we wish to have discussed. There are the Amendments relating to agricultural parishes. Various points have been raised and it is desirable to discuss them again. There is the question, for instance, whether the rateable value of a railway passing through an agricultural parish should be included
or not, and whether large institutions, like workhouses and asylums and so forth, are to be added to the rateable value. Then there is the main point, which ought to be raised again, as to whether the whole genesis of the Minister's Clause in regard to agricultural parishes really has effected the purpose he has at heart, namely, the giving of the subsidy to the poorest class in the community, the agricultural labourer. That is the nominal object of the Clause dealing with agricultural parishes. It would be out of order to go into the whole question, but having regard to the fact that we cannot move any of these Amendments unless the Bill is recommitted in respect of the whole of these Clauses, I suggest it is highly desirable that we should so recommit it. We have got on very well with this Debate so far, and we have ample time. A private Bill is set down for 8.15 o'clock. We have an hour and a half before that, and a discussion of these Amendments in the friendly spirit shown this afternoon would not take more than half an hour.

Mr. MASTERMAN: We debated the various subjects mentioned by the right hon. Baronet at great length, and spent hours and days in Committee considering them. Evidently every one of these subjects raises the possibilities of further debate if we approach the problem on the lines suggested by the right hon. Baronet. After the previous Debates we obtained a promise from the Minister that he would consider the provision of some general method of meeting this whole question. There is, first, the point as to the population of the agricultural parishes entitled to receive the additional grants, and on an Amendment with regard to that, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown), the Minister has met us in handsome fashion. The second point is not entirely one of railways, waterways and lunatic asylums, but it is covered by the question of the proportion of the net annual agricultural value of the parish in comparison with the total annual value of the parish. That is the proposal which the Minister suggests we should discuss if we recommit the Bill. On that proposal we may have some observations to make and some Amendments to move, but I submit it is a
better, a clearer and a simpler way of approaching the problem of defining an agricultural parish than by attempting to introduce first the question of railways, then the question of waterways, then the question of canals, thee the question of inebriate asylums and all the other subjects which diversified the small hours during the early morning Debates devoted to this Bill. I therefore submit that we should accept the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Minister and make an honest attempt to meet the representations which have been made from all quarters by approaching this subject on the lines of considering what proportion in any parish shall be regarded as agricultural value as distinct from the total value. Thereby we shall avoid needless discussion and at the same time we shall be enabled to attain the object of members of all parties, namely, to enlarge as far as possible the definition of agricultural parishes entitled to receive the greater grant.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I support the Amendment of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham (Sir W. Joynson-Hicks) and his contention that the proposal of the Minister to limit the recommittal of the Bill to the Amendments which he desires to move, is inadequate if this subject is to be properly considered. We tried to point out to the right hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage various considerations which have to be taken into account in deciding whether a parish is actually an agricultural or rural parish, and we tried to point out to him how very seriously, in the proposals which he has made, this question might be affected by the presence of railways, waterworks, or public institutions, in a parish. The right hon. Gentleman gave us an assurance that he would consider these points very carefully, and what is the result? He entirely ignores all we have said on these various subjects which cause inequalities between different agricultural or rural parishes, and offers us instead something for which we are not asking, namely, a new proposal as to the relation which the agricultural value of a parish should bear to the total value. That proposal does not in the least meet our case.
When I sought to draw the attention, of the Committee to these difficulties, I
was not attempting to ask special favours for agricultural parishes. I was asking for justice as between different agricultural or rural parishes and trying to make the right hon. Gentleman see how very inequitably his proposal would work out in the case of certain parishes which undeniably are typically rural in character. Though this proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to limit the proportion of agricultural valuation to 30 per cent. will bring some other agricultural parishes within the benefit of the higher grant, it does not meet the case of those parishes of which I have special knowledge and whose claims I tried to put before the Committee the other day. It is not favour, but justice that we seek—some clear, intelligible principle which can be universally applied and which will be understood by all parishes. For instance, there is the question of population. The right hon. Gentleman no doubt thinks he is making a great concession to agricultural parishes by raising the limit of population which is necessary in order to qualify for the grant. The parishes with which I am concerned have populations far below the 50 or the 35 standard fixed by the right hon. Gentleman. I regard his standard of 50 persons to 100 acres as a semi-urban standard.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lady must not now enter into the merits of the proposal which she desires to submit later. The only question before the House is whether the reference to the Committee on the recommittal of the Bill should be wider than that proposed by the Minister.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I was trying to point out that this question could not be considered merely on the basis of the agricultural valuation being 33⅓ per cent. or 30 per cent., and that there are many more considerations which must be taken into account. I do not wish to go into details if I may have an opportunity later on of explaining why it is that there are typically rural parishes which will still he omitted under the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. Will it be possible to have an opportunity of discussing that point at a later stage?

Mr. SPEAKER: When the House go into Committee, I shall not be in control.
I should imagine it will be possible on the Government Amendments to discuss that question, but, as I say, I am not responsible.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Then I will do my best, Sir, to get the permission of the Chairman to bring these matters before the Committee. I will only add that this is a much more complicated question than the Minister seems to think, judging by the proposal which he has put down, and I earnestly hope we shall be allowed to consider the whole of Clauses 2 and 13.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I want the House to come to a decision on this point. I assure hon. Members I have not looked at this matter from a party or political point of view. I have been looking at the immediate point before us from the standpoint of practicability of administration, and if hon. Members depart from the course I have laid down there is no logical point at which we can draw the line. I cannot accept the Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Twickenham, and I appeal to the House to support the proposal which I have made.

Captain ELLIOT: I would appeal to the Secretary for Scotland, if the Minister is unwilling to allow us to have any discussion on these Clauses to intervene on behalf of Scotland. I observe, however, the Secretary for Scotland has taken an early opportunity of withdrawing from our discussion, and I think that alone is enough to compel us to give this matter a somewhat wider consideration than that suggested by the Minister. The Minister says, "I have looked into this matter administratively. You cannot do anything better than my proposals and I ask you to accept those proposals as the best possible." But the House of Commons should have a chance of telling the Minister the things which are in its mind as well as of hearing the things which are in the minds of the Minister's advisers, and I make a claim in respect of Scotland at any rate. The Amendment of the noble Lady the Member for Kinross and Western Perth (Duchess of Atholl) was not discussed during the Committee stage because it was not selected.

Mr. MASTERMAN: It was discussed on Clause 8 for an hour and a half.

Captain ELLIOT: I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman below the Gangway is anxious to have a series of humiliations finished as quickly as possible and is anxious that the Debate should rapidly terminate, but I ask consideration for those who desire to discuss the Bill and who, if necessary, will go to the length of recording their opinions against it, even though those opinions may be in conflict with the opinions of the Government of the day. We did not get a chance of discussing our alternative proposals. When we criticise the Government we are always told that we are not bringing forward any alternative proposal. Now, the Order Paper is loaded with alternative proposals. We do not suggest that they should be discussed at any length. My right hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment has said that half an hour would be sufficient, but we are anxious to bring those proposals to the notice of the Minister. The Minister says they are impracticable and unworkable, but that is always the opinion of any Minister about any proposal brought forward from any part of the House other than his own. I ask for your support in this matter, Mr. Speaker, as guardian of the rights of the House against the arrogance of the executive. Your successor may rule that any proposal to reduce the 30 per cent. is extending the scope of the Bill, and that consequently all we can do is to suggest that it should be put back to the figure which the Minister originally had in mind. I suggest we should have a chance of discussing the wider aspect of the question, at any rate as regards Scotland, and I appeal to the chivalry of the Under-Secretary to the Scottish Board of Health. Having been appealed to by the only Scottish lady Member, he should not exercise his power in this arrogant and brutal fashion, but should allow the lady the traditional privilege of having the last word.

7.0 P.M.

Lord E. PERCY: I just want to say in reply to the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) that one of the Amendments we wish to raise has never been discussed—the Amendment relating to houses intended for agricultural labourers.

Mr. MASTERMAN: It was ruled out of order both in Committee and in the House.

Lord E. PERCY: It was ruled out of order in the form in which it then was. It certainly is not out of order now. The Minister cannot say that that proposal is administratively impracticable. The reason why we are anxious to move that Amendment and have it discussed may be stated in two words, first, that the only justification for the increased subsidy for agricultural parishes is the position of the agricultural labourer, and secondly, that the increased subsidy given under this Bill will not enable us to build houses to let to agricultural labourers in any agricultural parish.

Mr. E. BROWN: I should like to say that in my opinion this subject has not received at the hands of the House the discussion it ought to have. The further I go with this matter, the more complicated it is. I have here a list of no fewer than 125 institutions in parishes in the country which will cut those parishes out of the Bill.
The fact is that 50 or 100 acres in the country areas in England will not affect urban areas at all, but bring in the bulk of them. I find that over 40 per cent. left out of the original definition will come in. The Amendment put down by the right hon. Gentleman does really go further than is appreciated by the House as a whole. It is allowed now on the grounds either of population or rateable value or both. I want to say here, with regard to the Amendment of the Minister, that I am rather alarmed at the statement made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, because I have no doubt whatever that, if the matter is to be dealt with in a manner that does not raise more administrative difficulties, but on the basis of simple numbers, we ought to have had a rather larger concession than we have got. It is quite obvious that the further you go with this question the more truly it appears that some of the. Amendments on the Paper are the best way of dealing with the definition of agricultural parishes.

Question put, "That the words 'the Amendments to' stand part of the Question."

The House divided Ayes, 234; Noes, 142.

Division No. 183.]
AYES.
[7.6 p.m.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Rathbone, Hugh R.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Hastings, Somerville (Reading)
Raynes, W. R.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Haycock, A. W.
Rea, W. Russell


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Richards, R.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hayes, John Henry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester, S.)
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Ritson, J.


Alstead, R.
Hillary, A. E.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W.Bromwich)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Robertson, T. A.


Ayles, W. H.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Baker, Walter
Hudson, J. H.
Romeril, H. G.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Royle, C.


Barnes, A.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Jewson, Dorothea
Scrymgeour, E.


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Scurr, John


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Birkett, W. N.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Sherwood, George Henry


Bonwick, A.
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Broad, F. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Simon, E. D.(Manchester, Withington)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Smillie, Robert


Brunner, Sir J.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buckle, J.
Keens, T.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Kenyan, Barnet
Snell, Harry


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, George
Spencer, George A. (Broxtowe)


Chapple, Dr. William A.
Laverack, F. J.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Charleton, H. C.
Law, A.
Stamford, T. W.


Church, Major A. G.
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Starmer, Sir Charles


Clarke, A.
Leach, W.
Stephen, Campbell


Climie, R.
Lee, F.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cluse, W. S.
Lessing, E.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Compton, Joseph
Livingstone, A. M.
Sturrock, J. Leng


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Loverseed, J. F.
Sullivan, J.


Cove, W. G.
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Crittall, V. G.
Lunn, William
Tattersall, J. L.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
McCrae, Sir George
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R.(Aberavon)
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Dodds, S. R.
Macfadyen, E.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dukes, C.
Mackinder, W.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Duncan, C.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Thornton, Maxwell, R.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Maden, H.
Thurtle, E.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marley, James
Tillett, Benjamin


Edwards, John H. (Accrington)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Egan, W. H.
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Tout, W. J.


Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Falconer, J.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Turner, Ben


Finney, V. H.
Middleton, G.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Millar, J. D.
Varley, Frank B.


Foot, Isaac
Mills, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Franklin, L. B.
Mitchell, R.M.(Perth & Kinross, Perth)
Vivian, H.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Mond, H.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North)
Montague, Frederick
Ward, G. (Leicester, Bosworth)


Gavan-Duffy, Thomas
Morel, E. D.
Warne, G. H.


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Morris, R. H.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Webb, Lieut.-Col. Sir H. (Cardiff, E.)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Col. Rt. Hon. Josiah C.


Gillett, George M.
Morse, W. E.
Westwood, J.


Gosling, Harry
Mosley, Oswald
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)
Moulton Major Fletcher
Whiteley, W.


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Murray, Robert
Wignall, James


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Murrell, Frank
Williams, A. (York, W.R., Sowerby)


Greenall, T.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Nichol, Robert
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)


Groves, T.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Grundy, T. W.
Palmer, E. T.
Wilson, R. J.(Jarrow)


Guest, J. (York, Hermsworth)
Perry, S. F.
Windsor, Walter


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wintringham, Margaret


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Harbord, Arthur
Pilkington, R. R.
Wright, W.


Hardie, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)


Harney, E. A.
Potts, John S.



Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Purcell, A. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harris, Percy A.
Raffan, P. W.
Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. Allen Parkinson.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Raffety, F. W.



Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford





NOES.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent,Dover)
Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John
Perring, William George


Atholl, Duchess of
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pielou, D. P.


Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Pringle, W. M. R.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Gretton, Colonel John
Raine, W.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Rawson, Alfred Cooper


Becker, Harry
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Rees, Sir Beddoe


Beckett, Sir Gervase
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rees, Capt. J. T. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Harland, A.
Remer, J. R.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Harvey,C. M. B.(Aberd'n & Kincardne)
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Black, J. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)


Blundell, F. N.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watlord)
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bourne, Robert Croft
Hill-Wood, Major Sir Samuel
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain W.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Seely,Rt.Hn.Maj.-Gen.J.E.B.(I.of W.)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hobhouse, A. L.
Shepperson, E. W.


Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Bullock, Captain M.
Hope, Rt. Hon. J. F. (Sheffield, C.)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furness)


Burman, J. B.
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Stanley, Lord


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Calne, Gordon Hall
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sutcliffe, T.


Cassels, J, D.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sykes, Major-Gen, Sir Frederick H.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Terrington, Lady


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Thomson, Sir W.Mitchell-(Croydon,S.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Clarry, Reginald George
Lamb, J. Q.
Turton, Edmund Russborough


Clayton, G. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ward, Lt-Col. A.L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Lord, Walter Greaves-
Wells, S. R.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wheler, Lieut.-Col. Granville C. H.


Cope, Major William
MacDonald, R.
Willison, H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
McLean, Major A.
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Dalkeith, Earl of
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wise, Sir Fredric


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset,Yeovll)
Martin, F. (Aberdeen & Kinc'dine, E.)
Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F. L.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Deans, Richard Storry
Morrison-Bell,Major Sir A. C.(Honiton)
Wragg, Herbert


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Elliot, Walter E.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Elveden, Viscount
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)



Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William



Ferguson, H.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.Colonel Francis E.
Pennefather, Sir John
Commander B. Eyres-Monsell and Major Sir Harry Barnston.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Penny, Frederick George



Gates, Percy
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)

Question,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 3, line 8, and Clause 13, page 11, line 7, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Wheatley as Amendments to be moved on re-committal,

Put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly considered in Committee

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Increased Government Contributions in case of houses which are subject to special conditions.)

Mr. WHEATLEY: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out the words "one-third", and to insert instead thereof the words "thirty per cent."
I do not want to detain the Committee long, but, if I had looked at this Amend-
ment merely from a party point of view, it would have been very tempting to me to have gone even further than I now propose. I will not get any very deep gratitude for what I am doing from those who are still left outside the provisions of the Bill. Indeed, I am inclined to think I might have been more comfortable if I had left a still greater number out. I want the Committee to remember the existing condition of things. There are a great number of parishes which are only partly agricultural, and in which the greater part of the population consist of industrial residents. The concession which I have made here, by reducing this figure from 33⅓ to 30, brings in 360 additional parishes in England and Wales, and I can assure the Committee I am thoroughly convinced that to go beyond this would be an extravagant use of public money. The intention of the House quite clearly it; that the £12 10s.
grant should only be given to those parishes which are mainly agricultural, and we know there are many cases where parishes that were never intended to participate originally in the provisions of the Bill are now going to share in the £12 10s. subsidy. It would have been quite easy for me to have said that all can have it The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) sought to confine the concession to houses built for agricultural workers, but the proposal I make gives generous treatment to agricultural people, and I hope the Committee will accept my Amendment.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I must say one or two words about this Amendment. It is quite true, as the Minister states, that the concession here will affect 360 parishes, but there are something like 20,000 parishes in England and Wales, and as to the number in Scotland, I am not informed.

Mr. WHEATLEY: There are 869 in Scotland.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Only 869! Why there are 800 parishes in one English county, namely Norfolk. We asked the Minister to try to make some Amendment to this Bill which would deal fairly with the position of agricultural labourers. Various suggestions were made by us in Committee and they have been ruled out of order on this recommittal stage, although they dealt with a grievance which was admitted to exist. It is not to the benefit of the agricultural labourer, the poorest paid worker in this country, that a man who may be earning £3 or £4 a week should live in an agricultural parish and should get an extra subsidy under the provisions of this Bill. The whole reason of the Bill is to give a weekly rental subsidy to the poorest class of the community because they cannot afford to pay an economic rent. That proposition was accepted by the Committee as the basis of this Bill. Then the Minister came to realise that there is a stratum of society poorer than the ordinary average industrial worker—the agricultural labourer, whose wages average from 25s. to 30s. a week and who therefore is not able to pay the same house rent as the ordinary industrial worker. In order to meet that difficulty the Minister said the Government would give a higher subsidy to agricultural
parishes for the purpose of dealing with the poorest paid labourers in those parishes. But that is not what is done by this Amendment. It is all very well for the Minister to say that he will alter the definition of agricultural parishes by 3 per cent., and so bring in 360 more parishes. But what will occur? He will find on one side of the road in an agricultural parish an agricultural worker who is getting the extra subsidy and on the other side in the adjoining parish—which is not technically an agricultural parish—there will be an agricultural labourer living there and working perhaps for the same farmer who will get the lesser subsidy. Both men will be earning the same wages and working on the same farm. I submit that that is a ridiculous thing which will have to be put right if this Bill is to be made a success.
It is quite clear that we do not want to pay greater subsidies than is necessary. The country cannot afford it. Under the Bill, if in an agricultural parish there are living agricultural labourers earning 25s. a week, and there are also living miners or railwaymen or postmen earning from £2 to £4 a week, these latter men will equally be entitled to the extra subsidy for the new houses built in that agricultural parish. The thing is absolutely unfair and unworkable. What answer can the local authorities give to men working at the same wage on the same farm when they complain that one is getting the higher subsidy and the other, because he lives in an adjoining parish, although Duly on the opposite side of the road, is, because his parish is not technically an agricultural parish, getting the lower subsidy.

Mr. PRINGLE: Workmen do not get the subsidy at all.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The supposition is that the local authorities will let the houses at lower rents in consequence of the subsidy. The hon. and learned Member has not taken very much part in the debate on this Bill—

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. During the whole Committee stage I was only out of the House for three hours.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am glad to think that the hon. and learned Member sometimes listens.

Mr. PRINGLE: I made several short speeches.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am not complaining of the hon. Member for not making speeches. It is admitted that the purpose of the Bill is to provide cheap rents for those men who cannot afford to pay ordinary normal economic rents That is an admission common to both sides, but there is a real difficulty which has not been attempted to be solved by the Minister, who says, "I see your difficulty, I see all the troublesome points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Brown) and by the Noble Lady the Member for Perth (Duchess of Atholl), and I am going to ask the Committee to get over them, not by meeting them, but by saying we will throw another 360 parishes into the Bill and call them agricultural parishes." It is not just to take that course. If the right hon. Gentleman had thrown 3,000 additional parishes in he would not have dealt with the difficulty which I have pointed out. He has preferred to take the easier course of throwing in 360 parishes and let all the difficulties go on just the same. With regard to the suggestions we have tried to put before the Committee, the Minister says they "may or may not be unjust, but I am not going to worry about them. I will simply throw in 360 more parishes." That is not dealing fairly with these unfortunate agricultural labourers. There is only one way of dealing with them.

Mr. PRINGLE: Give them the minimum wage at once.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: And suppose you gave them the minimum wage, would that put them on the same footing as the postmen, the railwaymen and the miners in the same parish?

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: They would be better off than some of the miners at any rate.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am referring to men who are living in the same parishes. [An HON. MEMBER: "30s. will bring them nearer to the same level."] The minimum wage of 30s. will not enable an agricultural labourer to pay an economic rent.

Mr. PRINGLE: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that neither the
agricultural labourer nor anyone else is going to pay an economic rent under this Bill.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The whole basis of the Bill is to provide cheaper houses for men who cannot afford to pay an economic rent. We proposed on this side to take, roughly speaking, the poorer paid labourers and to give them the higher subsidy. We want the subsidy to go to the man who needs it rather than to the man who lives in an artificially created agricultural parish. If the Minister had taken a little more trouble he might have found means of doing the thing fairly for the agricultural labourer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: How?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: There were Amendments down on the Paper, not only by my noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), but by hon. Members below the Gangway, which had that in view and which were discussed. The hon. Member may not have been in the House at the time we raised them, but I may tell him there was no reply from the Minister except that it was a very difficult thing to do. I think it could have been done if there had been a little good will on the part of the Minister. Now that the Bill is about to go to another place, I think it would be better for the right hon. Gentleman to be a little more reasonable and see whether he cannot remove what is an admitted blot on the Bill. It is a blot which will make much had blood and cause much heart burning in agricultural districts, and it will at the same time inflict a good deal of hardship and unfairness on agricultural labourers.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the better plan would be to first get out of the Clause the word 'one-third,' and then we can discuss the words to be substituted for them.

Question, "That the word 'one-third' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That the words 'thirty per cent.' be there inserted."

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "thirty", and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
I wish to make the Bill as workable as possible from a rural point of view, and I think the Minister might very well accept this Amendment. I gather that the Minister and his advisers are afraid that if a further reduction be conceded villages, which are not agricultural but mining, or where there are engineering works, will be brought in. I have made a number of inquiries in hundreds of parishes, and I have taken typical parishes in my own area, and I find that there is no danger whatever of any increase in the number of urban villages being included through a reduction, such as I propose, in the proportion of net rateable value. It must be remembered that we have to deal not merely with the rateable value, but with population, and I suggest to the Minister that wherever there is a large industrial village—I have one in my own area—it can come in in no possible way by either of these definitions; that is to say, it will be cut out either by one or by both. There is an industrial village, with a population of 6,000, that I have in mind. Possibly, its rateable value would bring it in under the first part of the definition, but the population is many more than 50 persons per 100 acres, and so it would be shut out.
In proposing the small reduction to 30 per cent., the Minister has made another anomaly. In my own division, by the original definition, in four rural districts, 10 villages were left out in one, four in another, and three in another. I gratefully acknowledge that the first Amendment, on population, has brought in the whole of the villages in one district, one in another, and seven in another, but the curious thing is that the reduction now proposed in the rateable value will not bring in the small hamlets through which the railways go, but will bring in one other village. I will take two parishes. There is one where the agricultural land is valued at £2,312, and the total rateable value is £9,080. At 30 per cent the value will be £2,744, but with the 25 per cent. that parish would come in. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is an absolutely agricultural parish, and if we can get the definition lowered to 25, it will not be bringing in an urban parish, but a purely agricultural parish. On the other hand, there is a similar village where the agri-
cultural land is rated at £957 and the total property at £5,049, but if you made the net rateable value 10 per cent., that village could not come in. I appeal to the Minister, having met us so far, to go one step further and define the net rateable value at 25 per cent.

Mr. BLUNDELL: I beg to second the Amendment.
Where you have rural parishes in the vicinity of big towns, they have more need of this subsidy than rural parishes right out in the country, because in the parishes in the vicinity of big towns all the available labour and materials will be drawn into the housing schemes in the big towns, whereas right out in the country you will have a certain number of local builders, who will probably be able to keep their men and go on building on a small scale sufficient for those villages. I therefore hope the Minister can see his way to accept the Amendment, which will give considerable satisfaction to the rural parishes which will be covered by it.

Mr. F. GOULD: I wish to appeal from these benches to the Minister to accept the Amendment which has been moved. During this Session much consideration has been given to these agricultural problems. Here we have a problem that I believe breaks down all party barriers, and I believe that there is general sympathy for it throughout the Committee. I want to suggest that if we are going to meet the problem of tied cottages, here is an opportunity of meeting it in very many new parishes beyond those included in the concession already accorded. If the Minister will meet us, I believe it will do more than any other Housing Bill has ever done in the history of housing for these rural parishes. What we need for these rural parishes is more vision and more appreciation of the rural problem, and I believe that this Committee ought to demand at least this concession.
In spite of what has been said by hon. Members opposite, this Bill will make big inroads into the problem, and it ill behoves those hon. Members to criticise this Measure, when it is remembered that £6 for 20 years was the maximum that could be conceded by them, and we have now got £9 for the urban industrial areas and £12 10s. for the agricultural
areas, for 40 years. It seems to me to be a liberal provision, but I do not want to see, side by side, one village, because of railroads or any other rateable value that may be in it, cutting against another village without railroads. No agricultural worker will understand such an arrangement. He will say, "I am an agricultural worker with 30s. a week, and I have as much right to ask that my cottage should come under the £12 10s. as the agricultural worker in the next village." I believe, although the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) does not think the rents will be adjusted, that public opinion and public pressure will adjust the rents according to the subsidy paid. I hope the Minister will accept it that I am voicing the feeling of the Labour Benches in favour of this concession being made, and will reduce the rateable qualification to 25 per cent.

Mr. A. GREENWOOD: I fear there is some little misapprehension in the minds of hon. Members with regard to the actual way in which this Bill will work. In an agricultural parish all the houses in that area will be in receipt of the higher subsidy. As a matter of fact, some of these cottages are not being let to agricultural workers, and might conceivably be let at what we might call industrial rents because of the higher wages of the workpeople occupying them. That could, so far as the housing authority is concerned, be set off to assist in a non-agricultural parish in the rural housing authority's area.

Mr. F. GOULD: Does the hon. Member imply that the two classes of subsidy will operate in the same parish, and that two different rents will be paid?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No. In an agricultural parish there will be one subsidy, the higher subsidy, for all houses built by the housing authority in that area, but my point is, that while there might be what we might call an agricultural rent charged for the agricultural cottage, and thus meet the requirements of the Act, at the same time other cottages in that area, in the occupation of industrially employed workers, could be let at a higher rate, and that would enable the rural housing authority in another parish,
which had been ruled to be not agricultural, to assist in reducing the rents of the agricultural workers there. On the general question, it is quite obvious, I think, to all Members of the Committee, that, whether you put it at 30 per cent., 25 per cent., or 20 per cent., you will have some Member in this House who knows of an agricultural parish in his constituency which is left out, and so long as there is an agricultural parish which is left out, there will be a grievance. We have tried to meet the Committee on this point, and the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to substitute 30 per cent. for one-third has gone, I think, some way to meet the views of hon. Members. At the same time, we are very desirous of ensuring that no truly agricultural area shall be deprived of the higher subsidy. After all, we have done something for the rural areas, and we have not, so far as I remember, received much encouragement from the thousands of agricultural parishes we have brought in.

Mr. E. BROWN: Twice in this House I have stated in no measured language my views about the problem.

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the Amendment to make it 25 per cent. were adopted, it would bring in some more agricultural parishes, but even then it might leave out one or two here and there which the Members of Parliament for those areas would think ought to be brought in. That is a serious difficulty, and one that I see no way of overcoming, but I think the Committee will, on the whole, feel it desirable to amend our proposal I think the feeling of the Committee is in favour of even more generous treatment than the generous treatment we have already afforded to the agricultural parishes, and, therefore, the Government propose to accept the Amendment.

Mr. BROWN: May I thank the Minister for making this further concession?

Amendment to the proposed Amendment agreed to.

Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 13.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 11, line 7, leave out "one-third" and insert "twenty-five per cent."—[Mr. Greenwood.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like, as a rural representative, to express my appreciation of the fact that the needs of seine agricultural areas are being met by the concession which has just been made by the Minister. At the risk, however, of wearying the Committee, I must repeat to the Minister that the concession still leaves out many typical rural areas in Scotland. I tried to show on the Report stage that the Minister of Health has kept his eyes fixed on two considerations only in a very complicated problem. He has not solved the problem simply by giving more on one basis if he continues to ignore the other factors. On a somewhat hasty calculation of the effect of this new Amendment on the parishes which have hitherto been excluded in Perthshire, I find that the result of the Ministerial Amendment will make very little difference to the position—that parishes that will not be benefited by the Amendment are such parishes as Glendevon, Aberfoyle, Callander, and Killin. The right hon. Gentleman ignores the very great effect of the presence of waterworks and of considerable sporting rents valuation on the valuation of the parish. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman takes credit to himself for having increased the population basis from 35 to 50 per 100 acres. That, no doubt, has brought in many parishes that are more populous, but there are many rural parishes in my own part of the country where a population of 50 per 100 acres is regarded as semi-urban. The highest population among the parishes I have just enumerated is about 5 per 100 acres, and two of the parishes have a population of less than one and a quarter persons per 100 acres. These are parishes which, in spite of the Minister's concession, are still excluded; yet it is apparent to anyone who knows these parishes, or to those who have studied the population figures, that they are typical rural parishes. You could not find any more typically rural if you searched throughout Scotland.
Another very important point, which I do not think has been sufficiently emphasised in the House, is that, although this is a Bill for Great Britain, which, I understand, seeks to treat Scotland and England alike, in that it makes the calculation on the same basis of population and valuation, and proposes to give the same grant, there is one important respect in which the Bill is different: that is, that the calculation in England and Wales is to be made on the net valuation, and in Scotland on the gross valuation. I tried to make this clear the other day. I tried to show what a serious effect this different treatment would have in parishes which included waterworks, because very much larger deductions were made off waterworks than off other subjects. Therefore the presence of waterworks in calculating the net or the gross valuation respectively really completely alters the proportion that the agricultural valuation bears to the other subjects in the parish. I submit that, although we have had this concession from the Minister in respect to some areas, we have had no explanation from either the right hon. Gentleman or the Secretary for Scotland as to the reason why this difference has been made between the two countries. It is extremely unsatisfactory, and I suggest that the House would like to know from one or the other why this distinction, which so seriously prejudices many rural parishes, is being perpetuated.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to take a point in respect to Scotland. I think the Minister adopted the wrong policy altogether by adopting preferential treatment for rural parishes. I think the moment he started on that basis, that moment he drifted into the difficulties with which we are now faced. I agree that when the right hon. Gentleman started to take the agricultural worker, and the worker in the town, the mail who worked in one place and resided in another, and refused the subsidy to the parish where the man resided he made a mistake. What is the position that we have in Scotland? You are giving the agricultural parishes, those agriculturally rated, a subsidy of £12 10s., and presumably that subsidy is being given because of the low wages obtaining in the agricultural areas. But you go to Glasgow, and you find that the steel workers, the labourers, and other men
are working for 33s. and 34s. per week, and they are only receiving the £9 subsidy, whereas, as I say, four or five miles away in an agricultural parish where the labourers' wages are three or four shillings a week more they are receiving the £4 10s. We agree, I think, if agricultural wages are low, it is wrong in principle to give the extra subsidy. It should be the duty of Parliament to endeavour to secure what is required by a legal minimum wage. The differentiation between the agricultural worker and the town labourer was wrong, and could not be defended when it came to the Floor of the House. I say frankly to the Noble Lady opposite that while she speaks of her part of the country, we can bring from a number of other districts people receiving as low wages, and lower, than her area; these are only receiving the £9 subsidy and have to pay more rent. Let us also not forget this very important fact. I reside in a highly industrial parish when our burden of unemployment has given us a parish rate of at least 5s. 9d. in the pound; but I know agricultural parishes a few miles away where, in addition to this subsidy being granted, there is practically no unemployment, and the rate is something like 5½d. in the pound. Therefore, in addition to having been granted the extra subsidy, they have practically no poor rate, although possibly they are receiving higher wages.
For my own part, I regret the Minister ever went on this policy of differentiation between the town and the rural areas, and that he now finds himself faced with certain difficulties which can only be met, in my opinion, by giving £10 or £11 subsidy over the whole country. To me, that is the only possible method of meeting the difficulty. I raise the point because I have noticed a tendency to think that low wages are only in the rural areas, while, at the same time, it is forgotten that there are as low wages in our bigger centres of population amongst the steelworkers, the shipbuilders or others as there are in any of the rural areas.

Mr. PRINGLE: I am sorry to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals, for reasons upon which we may all congratulate him, has not, perhaps, given that attention to the Committee stage of this Bill—

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I say, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Penistone, that I have only been absent one day this week. As regards the earlier stages of the Bill, while I did not make so many speeches as the hon. Member for Penistone, I was more regular in my attendance, and certainly, I think, gave more attention to the Debates.

Mr. PRINGLE: I accept the correction of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals without modifying my congratulations to him. An effort was made to raise the question so often referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson), the question of necessitous areas. I quite agree that there are many urban areas where unemployment is exceptionally severe, and where the housing difficulty is as great as in any part of the country, where, under a heavy burden of rates, the local authorities will have as great difficulty to deal with the housing problem as any of the agricultural areas. There was an Amendment down from this side which, however, had not the honour of being selected, and in these circumstances the matter has not been discussed in the House at all. I hope, however, that on some future occasion this matter of the arrangements in regard to necessitous areas will receive the attention of the Government.

8.0 P.M.

Captain ELLIOT: I just wish to point out that some of us pleaded a little while ago that this Bill should be recommitted in respect of certain of these Clauses, so that we might have a chance of discussing some of the Amendments with the object of seeing whether any alternative proposals could be found or one or two more of these more important points, which seem to have landed the Minister deeper and deeper into the morass. Only two or three Members had a chance of speaking before the Parliamentary Secretary got up to make the concession that he announced, and, after all, there are Members for other parts and other areas than the agricultural areas who scarcely have had any opportunity of making themselves heard in respect to some of these matters. I thoroughly agree with the contention of the hon. Member for Gorbals, who has pointed out that in Scotland particularly we do not have this wide disparity between the agricultural worker and the urban worker which is such a feature of
the English economic system. In England you have this very wide differentiation. Be-cause of this a high cost is being thrown upon the cities in this matter of housing than in the country. There is a danger in Scotland that the highly-paid agricultural worker is being subsidised in respect of housing at the expense of the industrial part. I do think that in Scotland there ought to have been more investigation into the circumstances than the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary gave, and I do say that the concession will land the Minister, when he comes to work the thing out administratively, in a very much larger problem than he had any idea of at present. I am seriously alarmed at the result that these Amendments may have when the Bill is subsequently worked out in practice. For example, the question of placing these houses eight and 12 to the acre, I am certain, will involve the Minister in great difficulties, and may be a serious handicap to the progress of the Bill. I still say the Minister should consider, when the Bill is in another place, whether it is not necessary to give further consideration to some of these concessions, such as this one, which, it seems to me, has been given without anything like sufficient consideration.

Mr. BROAD: I think it is necessary to draw attention to the real need and justification for making this discrimination between the rural and urban districts. There has been a strange concensus of opinion that this difference between the rural and urban districts is made because of the lower wages paid, and that this is to be a subsidy to wages. I think the real reason for this distinction is that in the rural districts the cost of building is greater, because of transport and labour, and because of the difficulty of connecting-up drains, water, and so on; and because of the further consideration that the rural areas are not so well able to bear the cost on the rates. But to-night we find that the one discrimination which is made between the rural and urban districts is the lower wages paid to the agricultural worker. If we are going to proceed on those principles, we ought to recast the whole Bill, and base it on the principle of restricting it to people with the lowest wages. That is a very had principle to adopt, and I should certainly have had a different attitude towards this Bill from
the first if the discrimination was regarded as a subsidy to agricultural workers in particular, because I know that is not going to work to the benefit of the agricultural labourer, but will simply go into the pockets of the landowner in the end. I hope it will not be accepted that the Labour party has made this subsidy out of consideration for the low wages of the agricultural worker, but that it is really for the economic reason of the greater cost of building in rural areas, and the inability of rural areas to bear the strain on their rates.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended (on recommittal) considered; to be read the Third time To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL [Lords].

As amended (in the Standing committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of Section 86 and 87 of the Government of India Act.)

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words
except where in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest.
and to insert, instead thereof, the word "unless."
Sub-section (5) will then read:
if he does not resume his duties upon the termination of the period of the leave, he shall, unless the Secretary of State in Council otherwise directs, repay, in such manner as may be so prescribed as aforesaid, any leave-allowances received under this Sub-section.''
I move this Amendment in deference to the general wish of the Committee upstairs, that the right of the Secretary of State to waive repayments should be extended, not only to those individuals who may be called home for urgent reasons of public interest, but also to individuals who may come home because of illness, and fail to return at the end of the period for the same reason.

Earl WINTERTON: I am not quite sure that I agree with the Amendment.
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not explain a little more clearly the whole Clause before moving the Amendment. There was a considerable change, as I understand, made in this Clause by the Committee. Originally, there was no distinction drawn in the Clause between a high official who came home on matters of public interest, and one who came home for reasons of health and private affairs. The Committee inserted two Amendments in the Clause, one of which is to be found in Sub-section (4), where a distinction is made between the official who comes home on public business, and the official who comes home on private business, by granting to the official who comes home on public business certain advantages that the official who conies home on private business, or for reasons of health, does not enjoy. The other distinction was made in this Subsection (5), which is the subject of the Amendment now before the House. The Committee left the Clause as it originally stood in the case of the official who came borne for reasons of health or private affairs, so that he could not in any case obtain repayment of his leave-allowances if he, at the end of his period of leave, did not return to India. I think I am correct in saying that.

Mr. RICHARDS: I think the Noble Lord is somewhat under a misapprehension. As the Bill was originally drafted in the House of Lords, I believe there was no proposal for repayment at all. Then there was a proposal that there should be a provision in the Bill for repayment, except in the case of an individual called home for urgent reasons of public interest. It was felt rather a hardship if a public official in India—either the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief, who were the two persons concerned—was called home on a matter of urgent public interest, and was unable, for reasons of health, to return at the end of the period—four months—that he should be asked to repay the allowances paid during the period he was here. The views of the Committee, which were expressed very strongly by Members on both sides, was that that same hardship might occur in the case of an individual who came home for reasons of health, and was unable to return for the same reasons, and the view of the Committee
was that the Secretary of State should exempt that individual as well from making repayment of the allowances.

Earl WINTERTON: Unless he otherwise direct.

Mr. RICHARDS: Yes.

Earl WINTERTON: I was quite familiar with the change made. I apologise if I put my point clumsily. They drew a distinction in this Subsection, as in the previous Sub-section, between the official who came home for reasons of health and private affairs, and the official who came home on public affairs. What I understand the hon. Gentleman now seeks to do—I do not understand why this Amendment was not put on the Order Paper in the ordinary way; it is usual, when the Minister has decided to move an Amendment, to put it on the Order Paper—what the hon. Gentleman now seeks to do is to extend the advantage, which the Committee had already given to those officials who come home on questions of public interest, to those who come home for private reasons. On that point there is no difference of opinion between us, but I wish to make a further point in connection with the same matter. In the first place, I do not know why the hon. Gentleman ever laid down in the Clause that these officials should be required to repay these leave-allowances. I should have thought it was not necessary. If he assures me that, in the interests of good administration, it is necessary, I say nothing further on that point, but when he made the distinction between the two sets of officials, he qualified that distinction very materially by inserting the words
he shall, except where in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest, the Secretary of State in Council otherwise directs.
In other words, the Secretary of State in Council is the deciding authority as to whether this official shall or shall not have to repay his leave-allowances, and in extending the Amendment so as to provide for the other type of official, he equally leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not the repayment shall be allowed. While I think, in the case of an officer or an official who is in England for reasons of health or private affairs, that, perhaps, on the
whole it is better that the Secretary of State should be the deciding authority as to whether or not this official is to repay his allowances, I must say I think in the case of an officer or official who is home on public affairs, it is a mistake to give to the Minister the right of deciding whether or not that officer or official shall have to repay his leave-allowances. I will give my reasons. The Under-Secretary may feel that they are not strong reasons, because the circumstances are not likely to arise. But, say the Commander-in-Chief or the Viceroy in India comes home to England, summoned by the Secretary of State, to discuss some great question of policy on which he and the Secretary of State do not see eye to eye. After prolonged discussion, it may be the Secretary of State decides he cannot alter his view, and is still against the view of the Commander-in-Chief or Viceroy. The Commander-in-Chief or Viceroy says. "I am no longer able to go on; I must resign." Then the onus would rest—and it would be rather an invidious responsibility—upon the Secretary of State in Council to decide whether or not in this case the leave-allowances should be repaid by the official in question. It is a responsibility which should not be put upon the Secretary of State in Council. I admit I hardly can see it would often arise, but there might be the ease of serious dispute where the Secretary of State believed the Viceroy or Commander-in-Chief had not carried out his duties as he should have done, that the Secretary of State in Council might have a very unpleasant decision to take, and I should have thought it was far better to say in a case of an official home on duty, he should not in any case have to repay these allowances, but if home on private affairs, or for reasons of health, it should rest with the Secretary of State to decide whether the allowances should be paid.

It being Quarter-past Eight of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction, of the Chairman, of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords] (by Order): Second Reading deferred until Tuesday next (29th July).

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (LEAVE OF ABSENCE) BILL [Lords].

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Amendment proposed on Consideration of Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

Mr. BANKS: I should like to associate myself with the criticisms which have been made by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton). As the Clause stands, it has this effect, that where a man comes home upon leave in connection with his health or private affairs he must, if he does not return to India, repay his allowance, whereas in the ease of a servant who comes over in the public interest he may be relieved of the liability to repay his leave-allowances at the discretion of the Secretary of State. If I have rightly followed the Amendment, the effect in future will be that the person who comes over on private affairs or leave may likewise be relieved at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I am very glad that that discretion is given in connection with an Indian servant who comes over here on matters of health or private affairs, because I can conceive many circumstances in which it would be only proper that this concession should be made.
I feel very strongly that the Viceroy or the Commander-in-Chief earning home from India on leave stand upon a different footing from anybody who for whatever reason are over here in regard to private affairs. That distinction is properly drawn in the preceding Clause because it recognises that, whereas the person who comes over on private affairs has his office vacated from the beginning of his leave, in the case of a person coming over in the interest of the State his office is not so determined. These two classes stand upon a different footing. The Governor-General or the Commander-in-Chief, if he
comes over on urgent business of public importance is summoned, and he is bound to come and it is one of the duties of his office to answer the call. Therefore he should not be exposed to any risk at all in the matter.
In the case of a person not coming over in the public interest the Secretary of State should have the discretion to put the matter right, but when the Commander-in-Chief or any of the higher officials in India come over it is inconceivable that they should come here except on business of a very important character, and they should feel that their leave allowances are secured to them as a matter of right. The, hypothetical case which was put by the Noble Lord is one which might very well occur in the present state of India. Great events will have to be discussed there before very long which may necessitate a visit from some of these high officials in India, and it would be very mean and shabby that this country should bring over either of these two great officials on important public business and not allow them to feel that they are entitled to their leave allowances as a matter of right.

Earl WINTERTON: Are we going to have any reply to these criticisms?

Mr. RICHARDS: With regard to the point made by the Noble Lord as to the possibility of a conflict between the Commander-in-Chief and the Secretary of State, I quite appreciate the possibility of that taking place, but I think the matter is safely left in the discretion of the Secretary of State in Council. This Bill has been very carefully debated is another place by a number of those who have had actual experience of the present, procedure. It has been debated there at very great length, and the suggestion made was that the matter should be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State in Council.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not quite follow what the hon. Gentleman has said as to what took place in another place. There was no reference at all to the Secretary of State when the Bill left another place.

Mr. RICHARDS: There was a reference to this question of the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Earl WINTERTON: May I point out that Sub-section (5) of Clause 1 provides that
Where a person obtains leave of absence in pursuance of this Section he shall be entitled to receive during his absence such leave-allowances as may be prescribed by rules made by the Secretary of State in Council, but, if he does not resume his duties upon the termination of the period of the leave, he, shall, except where in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest the Secretary of State in Council otherwise directs, repay, in such manner as may be so prescribed as aforesaid, any leave-allowances received under this Sub-section.
This proviso was put in by the Committee upstairs.

Mr. BANKS.: That must have been so, because in the Bill as it left another place there was no distinction drawn between public and private interests.

Mr. RICHARDS: The words of the Amendment are
except where in the case of a person granted leave for urgent reasons of public interest.
That Amendment was inserted upstairs. The argument upstairs, which I have tried to meet in the new Amendment, was that that discretion should be extended to all three classes. I know it is difficult to draw a distinction between a man who is brought home on business and a man who comes home for reasons of health and is unable to return. We also find that it is difficult to draw a distinction between a man who comes home on account of his health and a man who falls ill while he is at home.

Mr. BANKS: The hon. Gentleman has not quite answered my objection, which is that, while I quite agree with and welcome the further concession which he has made, he still leaves it discretionary in the case of the servant who comes over in the public interest. In the view of the Noble Lord and myself, he should be on a different footing, and should be entitled to his allowances whatever happens. I do not think the hon. Gentleman addressed himself to that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Earl WINTERTON: I am very glad that the Government are putting this Bill into operation, but I should like to say again, if I may, that I trust that in future, when Amendments are introduced in Bills of this character, which are more or less agreed Bills, due notice will be given. What has happened on the Report stage of this Bill is very inconvenient.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Orders of the Day — OLD AGE PENSIONS BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. TURNER: This Bill carries out partly the pledge of the Labour party in attempting to remove some of the limitations which were placed upon the Act in previous years. I regret that the time is not financially opportune for carrying into effect all of the pledges made by, I think, all parties in the House. One regrets very much the limitations that were placed in the Act a long time ago by those who now sit below the Gangway and in other parts of the House, and I am looking forward to the time when it will be possible for the party at present in office to carry out completely the pledges which they have made at election times. I regret very much the Clause which deals with earnings, because it seems to me that it adds an additional inquiry to be made of the applicants for old age pensions; but, while we are at present removing some of the mistakes that others have put into the Old Age Pensions Act, I recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has indicated that this is as far as he can go with the money which he has in his possession or in prospect. I trust to time bringing along its due reforms, and I only regret that on this occasion the Chancellor has not been able to go straight forward for a reduction of the age limit for old age pensions and an increase in the amount of the pensions. I am young enough to have hopes that in the coming Sessions of Parliament he will be able to give to old people—and people are old as regards earning capacity before they reach the age of 70—to give them the hope of an old age pension at 65 of not less than 15s. a week.
I know that one of the chief arguments in Debates on this matter has been that there is not the money there, and that the point will be raised as to where it is to come from; but if one looks at the newspapers there seems to be a plethora of money in some circles of society. If one looks at the returns of the banks, the insurance companies and the big combines and trusts, it seems that there is an immense amount of spare money, or, at any rate, that very large profits are made, and, judging by the extravagance of society as a whole, there seems to be much waste of expenditure that could well be put to the purpose of providing old age pensions at an earlier age than 70, and of a larger amount than 10s. a week. There are many people aged 65 to 70 who cannot now find work, and to whom employers will not give work. There came to my knowledge only a few days ago the case of an engineer with a record of 23 years at the place where he worked, who was one of over 100 people who were suspended because trade was slack, and when application was made for a chance of work for him later on, the manager, in courteous language, but still, in plain language, indicated that, because he was 60 odd years of age, he was too old to have employment found for him. The time has surely come when folks who are refused employment because of their age should have the right to a pension, because they have been giving service to the State for, it may be, 50 or 60 years. The Commandment tells us to honour our fathers and our mothers, and it seems to me that the. State is doing the right thing in honouring our fathers and our mothers; but 70 is a long time to look forward to, and, with the limitations that exist, things are made very difficult for these old folks. While I am thankful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first Labour Ministry for abolishing some of these wicked restrictions which the Liberal party put on years ago, I look forward to the time when they may all be abolished, and pensions of not less than 15s. a week given at the age of 65.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — PENSIONS (INCREASE) BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL AUTHORITIES LOANS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with the issue of stock by local authorities in Scotland, which is regulated by the Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Acts, 1891 and 1893. Under those Acts a minimum price of issue of 95 per cent. is fixed, and it is also provided that, where a local authority has issued stock, any further issue by the authority must bear the same rate of interest as the original issue. Those Acts give the Secretary for Scotland certain powers to make amending Regulations, but, as I am advised by the Law Officers of the Crown, these powers do not enable me to alter the minimum price of issue or to fix a rate of interest, in the case of a new issue, different from that carried by earlier issues by the same authority. In these circumstances, it is obvious that the statutory provisions have become useless for the purpose of new issues in the case of local authorities who issued stock before the War.
As an example, I may state the difficulty of the Fife County Council. That authority issued stock before the War at 4 per cent., and now requires to make a further issue, but it is clearly impossible for them to comply with the 4 per cent. rate of interest and the issue minimum price of 95 per cent., and, consequently, a state of deadlock has arisen. The Fife County Council is not the only one of our local authorities that is in a similar difficulty. All our local authorities in Scotland are in that position in the event of their requiring to issue new stock, with the exception, I think, of the City of Edinburgh, and, consequently, they desire the relief for which provision is made in this Bill. In the case of the corresponding Statute in England, the Minister of Health has powers of a very wide nature to make Regulations varying the statutory requirements so as to avoid such a situation as has arisen in Scotland. Consequently, I find it necessary to ask the House for similar powers, which are provided for in this Bill.

Captain ELLIOT: I am sure we on this side of the House will offer no objection
to the passage of this Measure. We agree that the same power should exist north and south of the Border—certain dispensing power in the hands of the Minister—and we are convinced that if we are to entrust it to any Minister we could not entrust it to anyone of a more cautious and canny nature. Perhaps it is an example of the strong fellow-feeling of the part of the country to which the right hon. Gentleman belongs, and I believe the desire is not perhaps so universal he would have us believe. But, certainly, if the County of Fife wishes special treatment it is only just that it should be a Fifer who asks for it, and we are willing to believe that the County of Fife will have a close enough grip upon its money to make cure that it does not rashly or casually make use of the wider powers which the Secretary for Scotland asks for and which, on this side of the House, we are very ready that he should have.

Sir F. WISE: I do not want to object to this proposal at all. I quite agree that you could not raise a loan at 4 per cent. interest with the stock at 95, but is there no condition attached to the new authority? I understand the old authority had this price and a discount of 5 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman has not, told us whether there is any new statutory authority as to the discount or the interest.

Mr. PHILLIPPS: I wish to add one word to say that we on these benches will offer no opposition to the Second Reading.

Mr. ADAMSON: If any of our local authorities desired to make a new issue before the War, they had to do it on the same terms, and so for as my powers go, or whoever may hold the office, they cannot change that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Warne.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes before Nine o'Clock.